[Document  96  —  1879.] 


CITY  OF  MR  BOSTON. 


REPORT 


JOINT  SPECIAL  COMMITTEE 


INTRAMURAL  INTERMENTS. 


In  Common  Council,  September  25,  1879. 

The  Joint  Special  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the 
communications  from  the  Board  of  Health,  recommending 
that  further  interments  in  the  tombs  in  King's  Chapel  and 
Granary  Burying-grounds  be  prohibited,  beg  leave  to  submit 
the  following  report :  — 

Agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  Chapter  182  of  the  Acts  of 
1877, l  notice  was  given  to  the  owners  of  tombs  in  the  above 
burying-grounds  to  appear  before  the  committee  at  a  time 
specified,  and  show  cause  why  each  aud  all  of  said  tombs 
should  not  be  closed. 

The  hearing  relating  to  the  Granary  Burying-ground  was 
given  on  the  15th  of  July  last,  and,  a.t  the  request  of  the 
proprietors  of  tombs,  a  second  hearing  was  given  on  the  31st 
of  July. 

The  hearing  concerning  the  King's  Chapel  Burying-ground 
was  given  on  the  2 2d  of  July,  and  was  adjourned  to  the  4th 
of  September. 

An  abstract  of  the  evidence  and  arguments  presented  at 
these  hearings  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix. 

The  question  of  prohibiting  interments  within  the  limits 

i  See  page  61. 


2  City  Document  No.  96. 

of  the  city  has  been  considered  by  previous  City  Councils, 
and  the  agitation  of  the  subject,  as  well  as  a  growing  sense 
of  the  impolicy  of  permitting  such  a  flagrant  violation  of 
sanitary  laws,  materially  aided  the  establishment  of  the  rural 
cemeteries  which  now  ornament  our  suburbs. 

The  subject  has  received  considerable  attention  in  other 
cities  of  this  and  of  foreign  countries,  and  has  resulted  in  a 
large  amount  of  legislation. 

Believing  that  a  summary  of  wThat  has  been  done  in  past 
years  may  be  of  interest  at  this  time,  the  committee  present 
a  brief  sketch  of  the  history  of  intramural  interments,  com- 
piled from  such  sources  of  information  as  are  available. 

The  titles  of  authors  quoted  are  given  as  far  as  known, 
and,  for  the  convenience  of  those  who  may  desire  to  consult 
the  originals,  the  shelf  and  number  of  the  book  in  the  Bos- 
ton Public  Library  are  added. 

The  principal  methods  of  disposing  of  the  dead  from  time 
immemorial  have  been  :  — 

1.  Interment,  or  the  burial  of  the  body  in  earth  or 
stone. 

2.  Incineration,  or  the  burning  of  the  body  and  subse- 
quent entombment  of  the  ashes. 

3.  Mummification,  or  the  embalming  of  the  body. 

The  origin  of  each  method  is  enveloped  in  the  mists  of 
antiquity. 

If  we  accept  the  theory  of  the  pre-historic  origin  of  man 
and  his  gradual  development,  we  may  suppose  that  in  his 
orginal  savage  state  he  had  little  concern  in  the  disposition 
of  the  remains  of  his  kindred.  They  may  have  been  left 
where  they  died,  without  attention,  or  they  may  have  been 
devoured  by  the  survivors,  in  which  latter  case,  as  Dr. 
Adams  wittily  remarks  in  his  article  on  cremation  and 
burial,1  alluding  to  our  pre- Adamite  progenitors,  "the  pros- 
pect of  funeral  baked  meats  must  have  filled  their  minds 
with  unhallowed  joy."  It  is  probable,  however,  that  when 
man  became  sufficiently  developed  to  be  sensible  of  any  feel- 
ing of  respect  or  veneration  for  the  remains  of  his  kindred, 
inhumation  was  adopted,  and  became  the  general,  although 
not  the  universal,  custom  of  disposing  of  the  dead.  It  is 
certainly  the  oldest  method  of  which  we  have  any  record. 

The  Babylonians,  Assyrians,  Carthaginians,  and  other 
great  nations  of  antiquity,  buried  their  dead,  and  it  is 
believed  they  did  so  in  consequence  of  a  tradition  common 
among  them  that  the  first  man  was  buried.2     The  Hebrews 

1  Cremation  and  Burial,  by  J.  F.  Adams,  M.D.  Sixth  Annual  Report  State  Board 
of  Health,  1875. 

2  Religious  Coremonies  and  Customs,  by  Wm.  Burder,  B.A.  London,  1851.  Boston 
Public  Lib.,  3532.7. 


Intramural  Interments.  3 

practised  interment;  they  had  public  burying-grounds,  and 
their  first  care  upon  arriving  in  a  new  country  was  to  set 
aside  a  plot  of  ground  for  a  burial-place. 

The  Chinese,  from  the  earliest  times,  buried  their  dead,  and 
used  coffins  long  before  the  Christian  era.  Their  attachment 
to  burial  in  the  earth  arises  from  a  belief  that  the  body  must 
rest  comfortably  in  the  grave,  or  misfortune  will  follow  the 
family.1 

The  early  Christians  buried  their  dead  in  accordance 
with  the  Hebrew  custom.  They  objected  to  cremation  on 
the  ground  that  it  involved  in  it  the  idea  of  inhumanity  to 
the  body.2  With  the  believing  Romans  inhumation  was 
simply  a  return  to  an  ancient  practice  which  had  never  be- 
come entirely  obsolete.  As  Christianity  spread,  the  nations 
which  were  brought  under  its  influence  and  who  had  pre- 
viously disposed  of  their  dead  in  another  manner,  adopted 
this  custom  as  a  part  of  their  religion. 

The  origin  of  the  practice  of  incineration  is  lost  in 
obscurity.  It  seems  to  have  been  most  practised  in  early 
times,  by  the  most  warlike  tribes  ;  hence  the  belief  that  it  was 
adopted  as  a  means  of  protecting  the  dead  from  desecration 
by  the  enemy.  Pliny  ascribes  the  first  institution  of  burning 
among  the  Romans  to  the  impossibility  of  interring  human 
remains  left  exposed  during  the  wars  of  the  republic,  and 
to  their  having  discovered  that  the  bodies  of  those  who  fell 
in  distant  wars  were  dug  up  and  treated  with  indignity  by 
the  northern  barbarians.  In  some  places  it  was  undoubtedly 
resorted  to  from  sanitary  motives,  and  in  others  it  was  prac- 
tised as  a  religious  rite,  from  a  belief  in  the  purifying  influ- 
ence of  fire.  In  Asia  it  was  extensively  practised,  and  the 
Egyptians  adopted  it  after  they  abandoned  mummification, 
about  the  sixth  century.  It  was  extensively  practised  by 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  in  historical  times ;  but  in  both 
countries  it  was  preceded  by  inhumation,  and  at  no  time 
did  it  entirely  supersede  the  latter  method. 

It  is  not  positively  known  when  the  Greeks  adopted  the 
custom ;  they  are  supposed  to  have  learned  it  from  the  Thra- 
cians,  who  inherited  it  from  their  progenitors,  the  Scythians. 
The  institutes  of  Lycurgus  (B.C.  900)  specify  the  manner 
in  which  burial  was  to  be  performed.  In  the  fifth  century 
B.C.  it  would  seem  that  cremation  and  burial  were  both 
practised,  for  Plato  makes  Socrates  say  that  he  did  not  care 
whether  he  was  burned  or  buried. 

The    Romans   adopted  the  custom  of  burning   from   the 

1  Dr.  Eatwell. 

2  Dr.  John  Jamieson,  On  the  Origin  of  Cremation.  Trans.  Royal  Society  of  Edin- 
burgh.    Vol.  viii,  1817.     Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  E.  163.1,  vol.  viii. 


4  City  Document  No.  96. 

Greeks.  At  first  it  seems  to  have  been  reserved  for  persons 
of  distinction  and  wealth ;  but  after  the  cremation  of  Cor- 
nelius Sylla  (B.C. 676)  the  practice  became  more  general. 
It  reached  its  height  in  the  latter  days  of  the  republic,  and 
became  obsolete  in  the  fourth  century,  after  Christianity  be- 
came fully  established.1  Children  who  had  not  cut  their 
teeth,  and  persons  killed  by  lightning,  were  not  burned,  but 
buried.2  Cremation  is  still  extensively  practised  in  Hindos- 
tan  and  other  Eastern  countries,  as  well  as  by  a  number  of 
uncivilized  tribes  in  different  parts  of  the  world. 

During  the  present  century,  attempts  have  been  made  in 
Europe  and  America  to  revive  the  custom,  but  as  yet  without 
much  success.3 

Mummification  was  practised,  to  some  extent,  by  several 
ancient  nations,  especially  by  the  Egyptians,  who  embalmed 
all  their  dead.  It  is  estimated  that  400,000,000  human 
mummies  were  made  in  Egypt,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
art  of  embalming  until  its  discontinuance  in  the  seventh 
century.4 

The  ancieut  Peruvians  dried  their  dead  in  the  sun,  and 
interred  them  in  a  sitting  posture,  bound  in  cloth,  the  quan- 
tity of  saltpetre  in  the  ground  completing  the  desiccation,  — 
a  system  analogous  to  embalmment.3 

From  the  teachings  of  history  and  tradition,  we  may  con- 
clude that  the  custom  of  burying  the  dead  has  come  down 
to  us  from  the  remotest  ages,  and  though  at  different  peri- 
ods other  methods  have  prevailed,  interment  has  been  the 
final  lot  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  human  race. 

To  the  three  methods  of  disposing  of  the  dead  which  have 
been  recited  was  due  the  establishment  of  the  burying- 
ground  and  cemetery. 

At  first  the  dead  were  probably  buried  in  natural  caverns, 
or,  perhaps,  in  a  rude  grave,  marked  by  a  simple  mound  or 
a  rough  stone.  In  proportion  as  man  became  more  enlight- 
ened his  respect  and  veneration  for  the  dead  increased,  and 
sought  expression  in  the  memorials  which  marked  their  last 
resting-places.  The  mound  and  stone  increased  in  size  until 
the}'  grew  into  the  vast  tumuli  and  huge  monoliths,  which 
stand  to-day  as  the  only  evidences  of  a  pre-historic  race. 
The  development  of  art  wras  stimulated  by  this  desire  to 
honor  the  dead,  and  mural  decoration  furnished  an  early  op- 
portunity for  employment  to  the  pencil  and  chisel.     In  por- 

1  Adams. 
1  Burden. 

3  For  a  bibliography  and  historical  sketch  of  Cremation,  see  Cremation  of  the  Dead, 
its  history  and  bearings  upon  Public  Health.  William  Eassie,  C.  E.,  London,  1875. 
Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  3975.55. 

4  Appleton's  Enc. 


Intramural  Interments.  5 

traying  the  history  of  the  dead,  the  artist  unconsciously 
wrote,  for  future  generations,  the  story  of  the  living. 

When  men  began  to  live  in  settled  communities  the  dis- 
position of  the  remains  of  the  dead  became  a  matter  of 
prime  importance.  The  Romans  originally  used  their  dwell- 
ings as  tombs  for  their  deceased  relatives.  The  same  prac- 
tice prevailed  among  the  early  Greeks. 

The  Thebans  had  a  law  that  no  one  should  build  a  house 
without  providing  a  repository  for  the  dead.1  Among  the 
Egyptians  the  body,  having  been  embalmed,  was  returned  to 
the  relatives,  who  enclosed  it  in  a  wooden  case,  made  to  re- 
semble a  human  figure,  and  placed  it  in  the  repository  of 
their  dead.2  Experience,  however,  in  course  of  time,  dem- 
onstrated the  danger  of  these  customs,  and  led  to  the  enact- 
ment  of  laws,  by  which  intramural  interments  were  gener- 
ally prohibited.  The  privilege  was  only  accorded  to  holy 
men,  or  those  who  were  regarded  as  public  benefactors,  or 
had  rendered  eminent  services  to  the  community. 

The  Romans  permitted  vestal  virgins,  and  some  illustrious 
men,  to  be  buried  within  the  city.  The  right  of  making  a 
sepulchre  for  himself  within  the  Pomeerium  was  decreed  to 
Julius  Caesar,  as  a  singular  privilege.3 

The  Roman  law  of  the  twelve  tables,  enacted  about  the 
fourth  century,  expressly  forbade  the  burial  or  burning  of 
the  dead  within  the  city,  and  continued  in  force  many  years. 

The  Greeks  had  similar  laws.  The  Lacedemonians  were, 
however,  an  exception.  Lycurgus  taught  them  to  bury  with- 
in the  limits  of  the  city,  both  for  the  purpose  of  removing 
the  prevalent  belief  that  the  touch  of  a  dead  body  conveyed 
pollution  ;  and  also  to  encourage  the  youths  to  deeds  of  valor, 
by  familiarizing  them  with  the  spectacle  of  death. 

Burying-grounds  were  established  without  the  limits  of  the 
cities,  usually  near  the  highways,  and  the  dead  deposited 
either  in  the  earth  or  in  tombs,  more  or  less  magnificent,  ac- 
cording: to  the  rank  and  condition  of  the  deceased. 

When  burning  prevailed,  the  ashes  were  placed  in  cine- 
rary urns,  and  deposited  in  niches  cut  in  the  walls  of  the 
sepulchre,  called  columbaria. 

In  Egypt  the  accumulation  of  mummies  within  the  cities 
caused  a  serious  epidemic,  and  led  to  their  being  deposited 
in  catacombs  and  pyramids  outside  the  limits  of  habitation. 

Severe  penalties  were  enacted  against  the  desecration  of 
burial-places.  This,  however,  did  not  prevent  the  interven- 
tion of  the  authorities,  when  required  by  the  public  welfare. 

i  Jamieeon. 

2  Intramural  Interments  in  Populous  Cities,  and  their  influence  upon  health  and 
epidemics,  by  John  H.  Rauch,  M.D.,  Chicago,  1866.     Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  6796.43. 

3  Burder. 


6  City  Document  No.  96. 

The  vast  number  of  interments  in  the  burying-ground  for 
the  poor  people  of  Rome  having  rendered  the  neighborhood 
unhealthy,  Augustus,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate  and 
people,  gave  a  part  of  it  to  his  favorite  Maecenas,  who  built 
there  a  magnificent  house,  with  extensive  gardens,  whence 
it  became  one  of  the  most  healthy  situations  in  Rome.1 

The  growth  of  Christianity  brought  about  radical  changes 
in  respect  to  the  interment  of  the  dead.  At  first  the  Chris- 
tians, a  despised  and  persecuted  sect,  buried  their  dead  in 
catacombs,  excavated  in  the  hills  about  the  city  of  Rome. 
There  were,  in  the  third  century,  twenty-five  or  twenty-six 
of  these,  corresponding  with  the  number  of  parishes  within 
the  city,  and  measuring,  in  the  aggregate,  about  three  hun- 
dred and  fifty  miles  in  length.2  As  the  sect  grew  in  power, 
and  churches  became  established,  the  Roman  law  against 
intramural  interments  was  occasionally  disregarded,  in  the 
case  of  persons  eminent  for  piety,  or  services  to  the  church, 
although  the  church  herself  authoritatively  ever  set  her  face 
against  the  innovation  of  burial  within  the  churches,  or  even 
within  the  city.  Constantine  is  said  to  be  the  first  person  in- 
terred within  the  church  edifice,  and  even  he  was  not  deemed 
worthy  to  approach  nearer  than  the  outer  court  or  porch. 
At  first  the  privilege  was  only  accorded  to  such  as  these  ; 
but  at  length  the  desire  to  be  buried  within  the  sacred  pre- 
cincts, and  near  the  relics  of  the  saints  and  martyrs,  became 
so  great  that  the  power  of  wealth  was  freely  exercised,  and 
the  privilege  was  purchased  by  splendid  gifts  to  the  church. 
The  civil  authorities  were  sensible  of  the  danger  of  the  prac- 
tice, and  legislated  against  it  several  times.  In  381  the 
Emperor  Tlieodosius  explicitly  prohibited  interments  in 
cities,  and  ordered  the  removal  of  the  remains.  The  pro- 
hibition was  subsequently  embodied  in  the  Justinian  Code, 
and  it  was  not  until  509  that  formal  permission  was  obtained 
to  establish  the  first  Christian  cemetery  in  Rome. 

Burials  in  churches  became  more  frequent  from  this  time 
forth,  and  the  health  of  the  worshippers  became  seriously 
endangered  by  the  emanations  from  the  decomposing  re- 
mains. The  bodies  of  prelates  and  dignitaries  of  the  church, 
and  of  eminent  laymen,  were  buried  inside  the  walls.  Those 
less  fortunate,  or  less  powerful  and  wealthy,  were  laid  in  the 
enclosure  around  the  church. 

Thus  originated  the  graveyard  of  the  present  day  ;  an  evil 
gradual  in  its  growth,  but  at  last  attaining  such  magnitude 
that  its  deleterious  effect  upon  the  public  health  again  de- 
manded the  intervention  of  the  authorities. 

1  Burder.      8  Adams. 


Intramural  Interments.  7 

After  the  sixth  century  the  custoni  of  interring  the  dead 
in  and  around  churches  became  almost  universal  in  the  West, 
notwithstanding  frequent  efforts  were  made  to  abolish 
it.  In  the  East  the  ancient  prohibition  was  more  rigorously 
maintained,  although  exceptions  were  occasionally  made  in 
the  case  of  important  personages.  Toward  the  close  of  the 
eighth  century  Charlemagne  employed  himself  in  restoring 
the  ancient  ecclesiastical  discipline.  Councils  were  fre- 
quently assembled,  and  from  these  emanated  the  capitularies 
or  public  statutes,  established  by  the  concurrence  of  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  authorities.  These  statutes  forbade  the 
interment  within  churches  of  all  persons  whatsoever. 

It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  these  edicts  were  suffi- 
cient to  prevent  the  practice  ;  for  we  find  that  more  than 
twenty  synods  and  councils,  convened  at  different  periods 
from  the  ninth  to  the  seventeenth  century,  protested  against 
it;  but  without  avail.1 

In  the  fifteenth  century  the  magistracy  of  Nuremburg 
provided  for  the  burial  of  the  dead  outside  the  city  ;  and  at 
a  later  period,  in  1541,  they  forbade  interments  within  auy 
church  in  the  city.  Interments  in  the  city  of  Vienna  were 
forbidden  during  the  reign  of  Maria  Theresa,  about  1730. 
In  Paris,  in  1765,  the  nuisance  became  so  intolerable  that 
the  Parliament  of  Paris  decreed  the  closing  of  the  church- 
yards for  five  years,  and  the  opening  of  cemeteries  out- 
side the  city.  This  decree  was  occasioned  by  an  almost 
universal  complaint  from  the  inhabitants  of  parishes  of  the 
noisome  and  sickly  influence  of  churches  and  cemeteries.2 
This  was  not  sufficient,  and,  in  1774,  the  same  authority  was 
compelled  to  issue  another  decree  against  the  opening  of 
vaults  for  the  admission  of  bodies. 

Louis  XV.  concurred  in  the  prohibition  of  graveyards  in 
Paris,  and  granted  to  the  parish  of  St.  Louis,  at  Versailles, 
a  piece  of  land  in  the  forest  of  Sartoris  to  be  used  as  a  ceme- 
tery. Louis  XVI.,  in  1776,  prohibited  graveyards  in  cities 
and  towns  ;  but  made  an  exception  in  favor  of  clergy,  lords, 
and  patrons  of  churches,  who  were  allowed  to  be  buried 
under  vaults,  the  bodies  to  be  placed  six  feet  under  the 
lower  pavement. 

In  1777  a  general  disinterment  was  commenced  in  Paris, 
beginning  with  the  Cemetery  of  the  Innocents,  and  the  re- 
mains were  removed  to  the  catacombs  under  the  city. 

The  National  Assembly,  in  1790,  commanded  towns  and 
villages  to  discontinue  the  use  of  their  old  burial-places,  and 

1  London  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  73.     Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  3134.1. 

2  An  Exposition  of  tbo  Dangers  of  Interments  in  Cities,  by  Felix  Pascalis,  M.D., 
New  York,  1823.     Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  Medioal  Pampblets,  18. 


8  City  Document  No.  96. 

form  others  at  a  distance  from  their  habitations.  In  1804 
four  cemeteries  were  authorized  in  the  vicinity  of  Paris,  and 
in  1874  it  was  found  necessary  to  establish  a  new  one  at 
Mery-sur-Oise,  twelve  miles  from  the  city. 

The  example  of  France  in  interdicting  intramural  inter- 
ments was  followed  by  other  countries  on  the  continent  of 
Europe.  The  influence  of  physicians  and  a  better  knowledge 
of  sanitary  hiws  have  resulted  in  the  gradual  closing  of  the 
old  burial-places  and  the  establishment  of  rural  cemeteries. 

In  Great  Britain  the  subject  of  intramural  interments  re- 
ceived but  little  attention  until  within  the  last  thirty-seven 
years,  although  the  evil  effect  upon  the  public  health  was 
noticed  many  years  before.  In  1721  an  anonymous  pam- 
phlet was  published  in  London,  entitled,  w  Seasonable 
Considerations  on  the  Indecent  and  Dangerous  Custom  of 
Burying  in  Churches  and  Churchyards ;"  but  it  does  not 
seem  to  have  led  to  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  authorities. 
In  1740  a  pestilential  fever  raged  in  Dublin,  which  was 
distinctly  traced  by  the  authorities  to  the  exhalations  from 
the  gravejTards,  and  they  were  ordered  to  be  removed  out  of 
the  city. 

In  1839  Mr.  George  Alfred  Walker,  a  London  surgeon, 
published  a  work  on  the  condition  of  the  graveyards  of  Lon- 
don, which  attracted  much  attention,  and  led  to  the  appoint- 
ment by  Parliament  of  a  select  committee  of  fifteen  "  to 
consider  the  expediency  of  framing  some  legislative  enact- 
ments to  remedy  the  evils  arising  from  the  interment  of 
bodies  within  the  precincts  of  large  towns,  or  of  places 
densely  populated." 

This  committee  reported  on  the  14th  of  June,  1842,  ex- 
pressing the  opinion  that  the  practice  of  interment  within 
the  precincts  of  large  towns  is  injurious  to  the  health  of  the 
inhabitants  thereof,  and  frequently  offensive  to  public  de- 
cency, and  recommending  that  intramural  interments,  with 
some  exceptions,  be  prohibited.1 

A  Supplementary  Report  on  the  Results  of  a  Special  In- 
quiry into  the  Practice  of  Interments  in  Towns,  by  Edwin 
Chadwick,  was  presented  to  the  Home  Department  in  1843. 
From  the  evidence  on  the  subject  Mr.  Chadwick  arrives  at 
the  following  conclusions  :  "  That,  inasmuch  as  there  ap- 
pear to  be  no  cases  in  which  the  emanations  from  human 
remains,  in  an  advanced  state  of  decomposition,  are  not  of  a 
deleterious  nature,  so  there  is  no  case  in  which  the  liability  to 
danger  should  be  incurred,  either  by  interment  or  by  entomb- 
ment in  vaults,  which   is   the  most  dangerous,  amidst  the 

i  Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  5760.50. 


Intramural  Interments.  9 

dwellings  of  the  living, — it  being  established,  as  a  general 
conclusion,  in  respect  to  the  physical  circumstances  of  inter- 
ment, from  which  no  adequate  grounds  of  exception  have 
been  established,  that  all  interments  in  towns,  where  bodies 
decompose,  contribute  to  the  mass  of  atmospheric  impurity, 
which  is  injurious  to  the  public  health."1 

The  National  Society  for  the  abolition  of  burial  in  towns 
was  formed  in  1845.  The  address  of  the  society,  which 
called  for  "a  decided  expression  of  public  opinion,"  was 
distributed  in  circular  form  throughout  the  kingdom. 

In  1849  the  Asiatic  cholera  destroyed  no  less  than  lfi,000 
persons  in  London  alone,  and  the  General  Board  of  Health, 
consisting  of  Carlisle,  Ashley,  Edwin  Chadwick,  and  T.  S. 
Smith,  was  directed  to  cause  inquiry  to  be  made  into  the 
state  of  burial-grounds,  and  frame,  if  necessary,  a  scheme 
to  be  submitted  to  Parliament  for  the  improvement  of  inter- 
ment in  towns.  Their  report,  submitted  in  1850,  takes  de- 
cided ground  against  the  practice  of  intramural  interments.2 

In  1851  a  report  on  a  general  scheme  of  extra-mural 
sepulture  for  country  towns  was  made  to  Parliament  by 
Carlisle,  Ashley,  Chadwick,  and  Smith.  These  reports  had 
the  effect  of  bringing  about  the  required  legislation.2 

In  1806  the  Board  of  Health  of  New  York  city  appointed 
a  committee,  consisting  of  Dr.  Edward  Miller  and  Messrs. 
John  Pintard  and  Winart  Van  Zant,  to  report  on  measures 
necessary  to  secure  the  health  of  the  city.  This  committee 
recommended  that  interments  in  the  city  be  prohibited,  and 
suggested  that  "  the  present  burial-grounds  might  serve  ex- 
tremely well  for  plantations  of  grove  and  forest  trees,  and 
thereby,  instead  of  remaining  receptacles  of  putrefying  mat- 
ter and  hot-beds  of  miasmata,  might  be  rendered  useful  and 
ornamental  to  the  city." 3  This  report  was  instrumental  in 
causing  the  passage  of  a  law,  which  authorized  the  corpora- 
tion of  New  York  to  regulate,  and,  if  necessary,  to  prevent 
the  interment  of  the  dead  within  the  city.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  this  law  was  ever  enforced.  In  1822  the  yellow 
fever  prevailed  in  New  York  to  an  alarming  extent,  and  the 
virulence  of  the  disease  in  the  vicinity  of  Trinity  Church 
awakened  fresh  interest  in  the  subject  of  intramural  inter- 
ments. Dr.  F.  D.  Allen  published  a  pamphlet  on  the  sub- 
ject,4 in  which  he  cites  numerous  cases  of  disease  attributable 
to  the  exhalations  from  graveyards.  In  1823  Dr.  Felix 
Pascalis  published  "  An  Exposition  of  the  Dangers  of  Inter- 

1  Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  7063.9. 
»  Boiton  Pub.  Lib.,  7063.5. 

*  On  Interments  witbin  the  Populous  Parts  of  the  City  of  New  York,  1806. 

*  Documents  and  Facts  showing  tbo  Fatal  Effects  of  Interments  in  Populous  Cities. 
Boiton  Public  Library  Medical  Pamphlets,  11. 


10  City  Document  No.  96. 

ment  in  Cities,"1  which  to  this  day  is  an  authority  on  the 
subject.  An  ordinance  was  passed  prohibiting  interments 
within  the  city  of  New  York,  but  remained  inoperative  for  a 
long  time.  The  establishment  of  Greenwood  Cemetery  in 
1842,  and  since  then  of  other  rural  cemeteries,  led  to  the 
gradual  discontinuance  of  the  old  burying-grounds,  and  now 
interments  within  the  limits  of  the  city  are  prohibited  by  law. 

The  regulation  of  the  interment  of  the  dead  in  Boston  was 
vested  in  the  selectmen  until  1809,  when  by  vote  of  the 
town  it  was  transferred  to  the  Board  of  Health.  In  1797 
an  act  (C.  16,  1797)  was  passed,  authorizing  towns  and  dis- 
tricts to  appoint  a  Health  Committee,  consisting  of  not  less 
than  five  nor  more  than  nine  persons.  This  is  probably  the 
origin  of  Boards  of  Health  in  this  Commonwealth.  At  a 
meeting  of  the  town,  December  5,  1798,  the  representatives 
were  directed  to  apply  to  the  General  Court  for  a  Board  of 
Health.  In  1799  an  act  was  passed  repealing  so  much  of 
the  Act  of  1797  as  related  to  the  Town  of  Boston,  and  pro- 
viding for  the  election  by  the  people  of  a  Board  of  Health, 
consisting  of  one  member  from  each  ward  of  the  town.  This 
Board,  however,  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  burial  of  the 
dead,  until,  as  before  stated,  it  was  transferred  to  them  by 
vote  of  the  town  in  1809.  At  a  meeting  of  the  selectmen, 
January  17,  1810,  a  communication  was  received  from  the 
Board  of  Health,  expressing  their  willingness  to  accept  the 
care  of  the  burying-grounds.  The  first  printed  regulations 
of  the  Board  are  dated  May  7,  1810.  They  divided  the 
burying-grounds  and  cemeteries  into  three  districts,  viz.  : 
the  North  District,  comprising  the  North  Burying-ground 
and  Christ  Church  Cemetery  ;  the  Middle  District,  compris- 
ing the  Granary  and  Chapel  Burying-grounds  and  Chapel 
and  Trinity  Church  Cemeteries  ;  South  District,  comprising 
the  Central  and  South  Burying-grounds.  A  superintendent 
was  appointed  over  each  district.  The  superintendents  were 
required  to  cause  tombs  which  were  opened  between  the 
1st  of  July  and  30th  of  September  to  be  closed  and  pointed 
with  lime  within  twenty-four  hours  after  the  deposit  of 
bodies  therein  ;  to  cause  at  least  three  bushels  of  lime  to  be 
slaked  in  each  cemetery  on  the  1st  and  15th  days  of  July, 
August,  and  September.  The  top  of  any  coffin  was  not  al- 
lowed to  be  placed  within  three  feet  of  the  surface  of  the 
ground.  The  bottom  of  the  first  coffin  placed  in  any  grave 
must  be  at  least  eight  feet  from  the  surface  of  the  ground. 
The  regulations  further  declared  that  after  the  first  of  the  fol- 
lowing July  (1810)  the  old  part  of  the  North  Burying-ground. 

1  Boston  Public  Library  Medical  Pamphlets,  18. 


Intramural  Interments.  11 

(except  for  the  interment  of  people  of  color)  and  the  whole 
of  the  Central  Burying-ground,  should  be  closed,  and  con- 
tinue closed  for  ten  years.  Minute  regulations  were  pre- 
scribed for  the  conduct  of  funerals,  etc. 

These  regulations  were  continued,  with  slight  changes, 
until  the  abolition  of  the  Board  of  Health,  in  1824. 

The  city  charter  provided  that  power  and  authority  vested 
by  law  in  the  Board  of  Health  should  be  transferred  to  the 
City  Council,  "to  be  carried  into  execution  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  Health  Commissioners,  or  in  such  other  manner  as 
the  health,  cleanliness,  comfort,  and  order  of  the  said  city 
may  in  their  judgment  require. "  Soon  after  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  City  Government  a  Board  of  Temporary  Health 
Commissioners  was  appointed  (May  3,  1822).  A  con- 
flict of  authority  soon  arose  between  the  Board  of  Health  and 
the  City  Council,  which  continued  until  May  31,  1824, 
when  an  ordinance  was  passed  abolishing  the  Board  and  vesting 
the  duties  in  a  Commissioner  of  Health  and  Superintendent 
of  Burial-Ground  and  Cemeteries,  acting  under  the  direction 
of  the  Board  of  Mayor  and  Aldermen.  All  matters  relating 
to  the  interment  of  the  dead  were  placed  in  charge  of  the  said 
Superintendent.  As  no  new  regulations  were  adopted  at 
that  time,  it  is  presumed  that  the  old  regulations  continued 
in  force  until  December  25,  1826,  when  an  ordinance  relat- 
ing to  the  subject  of  interring  the  dead  was  passed.  The 
rules  prescribed  by  this  ordinance  differed  but  little  from 
those  previously  in  force.  The  seventh  section  provided 
that  the  Central,  Chapel,  and  Granary  Burying-grounds 
should  be  so  far  closed  that  no  new  graves  should  be  opened 
or  dug  therein,  nor  tombs  built,  until  the  further  order  of 
the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  ;  and  that  the  old  part  of  the  North 
Burying-ground  should  be  so  far  closed  that  no  new  graves 
should  be  opened  or  dug  therein.  Permission  might  be 
obtained  from  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  to  build  tombs  in  the 
new  part  of  the  North  Burying-ground  and  in  the  South 
Burying-ground.  No  graves  or  tombs  could  be  opened  from 
the  1st  day  of  June  to  the  1st  day  of  October,  except  for  the 
purpose  of  interring  the  dead,  without  permission  of  the 
Mayor  and  Aldermen. 

The  burying-grounds  and  cemeteries  remained  in  charge 
of  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  until  the  organization  of  the 
Board  of  Health,  in  1872.  In  1849  the  ofl3ce  of  Super- 
intendent of  Burial-grounds  and  Cemeteries  was  abolished 
and  that  of  City  Registrar  created.  An  ordinance  passed 
August  20,  1850,  provided  that  no  graves  shall  be  opened 
or  dug  in  any  of  the  burying-grounds  in  the  city,  excepting 
at  East  Boston  and  South  Boston,  unless  by  permission  of 


12  City  Document  No.  96. 

the  Mayor  and  Aldermen,  or  the  City  Registrar.  By  ordi- 
nance of  Oct.  14,  1869,  the  exception  in  favor  of  East 
and  South  Boston  was  removed.  The  present  regulations 
in  regard  to  the  interment  of  the  dead  will  be  found  on 
pages  413  to  417,  inclusive,  of  the  edition  of  laws  and  ordi- 
nances for  1876. 

The  first  burial-place  in  Boston  was  what  is  now  known 
as  the  King's  Chapel  Burying-ground,  and  the  first  interment 
therein  was  made  in  1630.  For  thirty  years  it  was  the  only 
burial-place  in  the  town.  In  1660  a  lot  of  land  on  Charter 
and  Snowhill  streets  was  purchased  and  set  apart  for  a 
burying-ground,  and  in  the  same  year  another  burying- 
ground  was  established  on  the  Common,  which  then  extended 
as  far  north  as  Beacon  street.  The  first  lot  referred  to  wag 
the  beginning  of  what  is  now  called  Copp's  Hill  Burying- 
ground,  then  known  as  the  North  Burying-ground.  The 
lot  on  the  Common  was  known  as  the  South  Burying-ground 
until  about  1737,  when  it  began  to  be  called  the  Granary 
Burying-ground,  because  the  old  Granary  building  was 
removed  that  year  from  its  former  location  to  the  present 
site  of  the  Park-street  Church,  marking  the  southern  termi- 
nation of  the  burying-ground.  In  1660  the  town  ordered 
that  the  old  burying-ground  should  be  "  wholly  deserted  for 
a  season,  and  the  new  places  appointed  for  burying  only 
made  use  of."  In  1708-9  and  in  1711  additional  land  was 
purchased  for  the  enlargement  of  the  North  Burying-ground. 
In  1810  the  new  North  Burying-ground  Avas  established  on 
land  adjoining  the  old  ground.  In  1819  thirty-four  tombs 
were  built  by  Hon.  Charles  Wells,  in  a  small  yard  adjoining 
the  old  ground,  and  called  the  Charter-street  Burying-ground. 
The  division  fences  between  the  two  last-named  lots  and  the 
old  ground  have  been  removed,  and  it  is  to  all  appearances 
one  burying-ground.  In  1832  a  row  of  tombs  was  erected 
in  what  was  called  the  Hull-street  Cemetery,  bordering  on 
the  north-west  8ide  of  the  old  ground.  This  cemetery  was 
discontinued  in  1853,  and  the  remains  were  removed  to 
Mount  Hope  Cemetery  in  1861. 

The  South  Burying-ground  was  sometimes  called  the  Com- 
mon Burying-ground,  from  its  location,  and  sometimes  the 
Middle  Burying-ground,  because  it  was  situated  in  the  mid- 
dle burial  district,  Copp's  Hill  forming  the  north,  and  the 
Boylston-street  Burying-ground  the  south.  It  is,  however, 
better  known  as  the  Granary  Burying-ground.  Originally 
the  graves  were  only  made  at  the  westerly  and  northerly  part 
of  the  yard.  The  oldest  tombs  were  built  near  the  back 
part  of  the  yard,  and,  with  the  contiguous  graves,  occupy 
about  one-quarter  of  the  burial-ground. 


Intramural  Interments.  13 

On  the  15th  of  May,  1717,  a  vote  was  passed  by  the 
townsmen,  "to  enlarge  the  South  Burying-ground  by  taking 
in  part  of  the  highway  on  the  easterly  side  thereof,  so  as 
that  thereby  ye  said  highway  be  not  thereby  too  much  strait- 
ened." 

On  the  19th  of  April,  1719,  it  was  "Ordered,  That  the 
South  burying-place  should  be  enlarged  next  the  Common  or 
training-field."  Under  this  Inst  vote  fifteen  tombs  were 
built  near  the  extreme  south-west  corner  of  the  yard,  and 
extended  in  a  line  on  the  south  side. 

In  1722  six  tombs  were  built  on  the  same  line,  extending 
easterly.  The  other  tombs  on  the  southerly  side,  fifteen  in 
number,  were  built  during  the  years  1723,  1724,  and  1725  ; 
the  first  thirty  on  the  easterly  side,  in  the  years  1726,  1727, 
and  1728,  and  the  northerly  thirteen  in  1736.  Of  those  on 
the  northerly  side,  the  first  five  were  built  in  1738,  and  the 
remaining  twenty-six  in  1810,  and  twenty-six  were  built  on 
the  westerly  side  during  the  same  and  next  three  years. 
There  are  sixty  other  tombs  within  the  yard,  which  do  not 
border  upon  either  of  its  sides,  one  of  which  belongs  to  the 
city.  In  one  respect  the  selection  of  the  site  for  this  ceme- 
tery was  particularly  unfortunate.  The  soil  was  springy 
and  exceedingly  damp,  and,  therefore,  required  drainage. 
It  is  said  that  when  Judge  Sullivan,  at  the  close  of  the  last 
century,  repaired  the  Bellingham  tomb,  he  found  the  coffin 
and  remains  of  the  old  governor  —  who  died  on  the  7th 
December,  1672  — floating  around  in  the  ancient  vault. 

The  fourth  burying-ground  in  point  of  antiquity  was  the 
Quaker  burying-ground,  situated  on  Congress  street.  It 
was  established  in  1709,  and  was  discontinued  in  1815.  In 
1826,  by  permission  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  the  remains 
were  exhumed  and  conveyed  to  Lynn,  excepting  the  bodies 
of  two  persons,  which  were  deposited  in  King's  Chapel  Ceme- 
tery. 

In  1740  the  selectmen  received  a  petition  from  John 
Chambers  and  others,  grave-diggers,  representing  "that  the 
Old  and  South  burying-places  are  so  filled  with  dead  bodies, 
they  are  obliged,  ofttimes,  to  bury  them  four  deep,  praying 
it  may  be  laid  before  the  town  for  their  consideration."  This 
caused  the  town  authorities  to  look  for  a  new  burial-place ; 
but  it  was  not  until  1754  that  a  location  was  decided  upon. 
On  the  11th  of  October  of  that  year  the  town  voted  to  pur- 
chase a  pasture  at  the  foot  of  the  Common,  and  in  1756  the 
purchase  was  consummated.  Here  was  established  the  South 
Burying-ground,  afterwards  known  as  the  Common  Burying- 
ground  until  1810,  when,  in  consequence  of  the  establish- 
ment of  the  burial-place  on  Washington   street,  it  was   des- 


14  City  Document  No.  96. 

ignated  as  the  Central  Burying-ground.  The  first  interments 
in  this  lot  were  made  in  graves.  The  first  tomb  was  erected 
inx1793,  as  far  as  can  be  ascertained.  From  this  time  until 
1800  a  few  were  built  each  year.  In  1801,  2,  and  3,  a  large 
number  were  built.  Boylston  street  then  formed  one  boun- 
dary of  the  lot,  but  in  1839  two  rows  of  tombs  on  that 
side  were  discontinued,  and  the  Boylston-street  mall  laid  out. 
Tombs  were  built  on  the  westerly  side,  to  compensate  for 
those  which  were  discontinued. 

In  1795  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  town  to  con- 
sider the  subject  of  the  burying-ground s  at  large,  and  to 
report  on  some  suitable  place  of  deposit  for  the  dead,  in 
order  that  the  town  may  be  enabled  to  discontinue  the  open- 
ing of  graves  in  the  Common  and  Chapel  Burying-grounds, 
The  committee  reported  on  the  6th  of  November,  1795. 
that,  n  having  consulted  the  physicians  of  the  town,  they 
find  it  to  be,  in  their  opinion,  that  the  health  of  the  inhabi- 
tants is  in  danger  from  the  crowded  state  of  these  grounds, 
and  the  exhalations  which  must  frequently  arise  from  open- 
ing graves  therein.  In  addition  to  which,  they  find  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  open  new  graves  without  disturbing  the 
relics  of  the  dead  already  interred.  From  an  equal  regard 
to  health,  for  a  decent  respect  for  the  living  and  the  dead, 
they  recommend  to  the  inhabitants  to  adopt  the  following 
measures  :  — 

"First.  That  no  graves  or  new  tombs  shall  be  opened  or 
built  in  either  the  Common  or  Chapel  Burying-ground,  after 
the  first  day  of  May  next. 

"Second.  As  the  South  Burying-ground  is  already  suffi- 
ciently large  for  the  present  accommodation  of  the  inhabitants, 
and  will  admit  of  such  enlargement,  that  the  Selectmen  be 
empowered  to  allot  to  any  inhabitant  who  may  apply  for  the 
same,  sufficient  ground  for  erecting  a  tomb  in  the  ground, 
and  to  enlarge  the  said  South  Burying-ground  in  a  direction 
westerly  whenever  the  public  convenience  shall  in  their  judg- 
ment require  it. 

"Third.  Inasmuch  as  in  remarkably  inclement  weather  it 
may  be  inconvenient  for  funerals  to  proceed  to  the  South 
Burying-ground,  that  the  selectmen  cause  to  be  erected  under 
the  vestry-room  of  the  stone  chapel,  or  in  some  other  part 
of  the  Chapel  Burying-ground,  a  vault  or  tomb  suitable  for 
temporary  deposit,  in  which  any  of  the  inhabitants  who  may 
incline  thereto  shall  have  the  right  to  deposit  the  bodies  of 
their  deceased  friends  or  relatives,  for  a  term  of  time  not 
exceeding  twenty-four  hours  (unless  in  particular  cases),  by 
permission  of  the  selectmen,  until  it  may  be  convenient  for 
them  to  remove  such  bodies  to  the  place  of  final  interment." 


Intramural  Interments.  15 

The  report  was  accepted  by  the  town. 

The  South  Burying-ground,  on  Washington  street,  was 
opened  for  burials  in  1810.  It  was  formerly  the  location  of 
the  gallows,  and  culprits  were  generally  buried  in  deep 
graves  within  the  cemetery,  near  the  place  of  their  execution. 
A  large  portion  of  it  was  marshy,  and  consequently  wet,  and 
hardly  fit  for  purposes  of  sepulture.  Until  1827  inter- 
ments were  made  in  graves.  In  that  year  tombs  were  first 
built  at  the  sides  of  the  yard,  and  from  year  to  year  others 
were  erected,  until  the  number  amounted  to  one  hundred  and 
sixty-two.  In  1837  a  large  quantity  of  proper  soil  was 
carted  upon  it,  and  the  surface  graded.  In  18(36  the  tombs 
on  the  northerly  side  were  discontinued,  and  a  strip  of  land 
ceded  to  an  abutter  on  that  side  for  yard-room,  and  another 
portion  for  a  hotel . 

In  addition  to  these  burying-grounds  there  have  been  five 
cemeteries  built  beneath  church  edifices  in  the  city  proper. 
That  under  Christ  Church,  Salem  street,  contains  thirty- 
three  tombs.  Interments  were  made  here  very  soon  after 
the  erection  of  the  church,  in  1723.  The  first  Trinity 
Church,  a  wooden  building,  consecrated  in  1735,  contained 
twenty-five  tombs.  The  new  church,  consecrated  in  1829, 
and  destroyed  by  fire  November  9,  1872,  contained  fifty-five 
tombs.  After  the  fire  the  remains  were  removed  by  the 
friends  and  families  of  the  deceased. 

The  original  King's  Chapel,  erected  about  1688,  contained 
several  tombs,  but  the  exact  number  is  not  known.  The 
present  building,  erected  iu  1749-50,  contained  twenty 
tombs  in  the  basement,  and  a  large  vault,  called  the  stranger's 
tomb,  under  the  tower. 

St.  Paul's  Church  contains  sixty-four  tombs.  In  December, 
1822,  the  proprietors  of  St.  Paul's  petitioned  for  leave  to 
use  the  cellar  of  the  building  for  interring  the  dead,  giving 
as  a  reason  that,  having  erected  the  church  at  great  expense, 
they  had  incurred  a  debt,  from  which  they  could  not  be  re- 
lieved unless  their  prayer  was  granted.  Formal  permission 
was  granted  September  1,  1823,  and  the  cemetery  has  been 
in  use  since  that  time.  By  chapter  28,  Acts  of  the  year 
1879,  further  interment  in  these  tombs  was  prohibited,  and 
preparations  are  being  made  to  remove  the  remains  to 
another  resting-place.1 

In  January,  1823,  the  proprietors  of  Park- street  Church 
petitioned  the  City  Council  for  leave  to  erect  tombs  under 
their  church,  and  the  petition  was  granted.  Thirty  tombs 
were  built.    In  1862  the  cemetery  was  discontinued,  and  the 

iThis  historical  sketch  of  the  burying-grounds  and  cemeteries  of  Boston  is  compiled 
mainly  from  ShurtlefFs  Topographical  Description  of  Boston.  Boston,  1871.  Boston 
Pub.  Lib.,  4451.20. 


16  City  Document  No.  96. 

remains  removed  to  Mount  Auburn  and  deposited  in  a  lot 
purchased  by  the  society  for  the  purpose. 

In  June,  1823,  the  proprietors  of  Bromfield-street  Church 
petitioned  for  a  like  privilege.  This  drew  the  attention  of 
the  City  Council  to  the  subject,  and  the  petition  was  referred 
to  a  committee,  of  which  the  Mayor,  Josiah  Quincy,  was 
chairman,  to  consider  the  expediency  of  granting  such  a 
right.  This  committee  reported  adversely  to  the  petitioners, 
in  a  very  able  report,  which  may  be  found  in  Volume  1  of 
the  City  Kecords.  In  concluding  their  report  the  committee 
recommended  the  prohibition  of  the  erection  of  new  tombs 
within  the  ancient  peninsula  of  Boston ;  the  adoption  of 
measures  ultimately  tending  to  exclude  all  burials  hereafter 
within  the  peninsula,  and  devising  methods  for  applying  the 
only  perfect  and  satisfactory  remedy,  by  adopting  some  com- 
mon place  of  burial  for  all  the  inhabitants ;  selected,  if  pos- 
sible, beyond  the  limits  of  the  city,  but  certainly  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  peninsula,  of  an  extent  sufficient  to  meet  the 
future  exigencies  of  the  population.  The  resolutions 
embodying  these  recommendations  were  adopted  by  the 
City  Council. 

Interments,  however,  continued  to  be  made  in  the  several 
burying-grounds,  although  from  time  to  time  vigorous  pro- 
tests against  the  practice  appeared  in  the  public  prints.  In 
1831  Mount  Auburn  Cemetery  was  established,  and  this  in 
some  degree  met  the  wants  of  the  constantly  increasing 
population  of  the  city.  The  records  of  the  city  are 
silent  upon  the  subject  until  1847,  when  the  following 
appears  in  the  inaugural  gddress  of  the  Mayor  (Josiah 
Quincy,  Jr.)  :  — 

Another  subject  which  demands  your  attention  is  the  burial  of  the 
dead  in  the  city.  There  are  reasons  connected  both  with  health  and  the 
natural  feelings  of  man  that  have  caused  almost  all  large  cities  to  forbid 
interments  within  their  limits,  except  under  particular  circumstances. 
In  our  own  no  burials  are  made  in  graves.  There  are  in  the  city,  in- 
cluding one  at  South  Boston,  not  used,  nine  burial-places,  containing 
nine  hundred  and  thirty-three  tombs.  There  are  six  churches  with 
cemeteries  below  them,  containing  two  hundred  and  seventy-nine  tombs, 
making  in  all  one  thousand  two  hundred  and  twelve  tombs.  As  it  respects 
tombs  owned  by  families  I  would  suggest  the  propriety  of  preventing 
any  bodies  being  deposited  in  them  excepting  members  of  the  family, 
and  of  fixing  a  time  after  which  no  interments  whatever  should  be 
made.  As  to  the  tombs  belonging  to  undertakers  and  others,  where 
bodies  are  deposited  on  the  payment  of  a  fee,  and  where  it  has  been  the 
practice  after  a  few  years  to  remove  the  remains  to  make  way  for  others, 
and  thus  render  them  a  source  of  constant  income,  I  recommend  that 
it  be  ordained  that  these  and  all  tombs,  when  once  filled,  shall  be  closed 
forever.  This  is  due  to  the  health  and  feelings  of  the  living,  and  to  the 
respect  due  to  the  dead.  This  may  in  time  render  it  necessary  to  pro- 
vide burial-places  out  of  the  city,  which  by  charging  a  small  fee  for  the 
rights  of  sepulchre,  could  be  done  without  expense  to  the  city,  and 


Intramural  Interments.  17 

would  at  least  enable  the  poor  man,  when  he  died,  to  feel  that  his  dust 
was  to  rest  in  a  quiet  grave. 

In  1849  Mayor  Bigelow,  in  his  inaugural  address,  refer- 
ring to  a  threatened  visitation  of  the  cholera,  says  :  — 

In  this  connection,  I  would  renew  the  suggestions  of  my  honored 
predecessor  in  reference  to  burials  within  the  limits  of  our  dense  popu- 
lation. Upon  this  point  of  economical  regulation  we  are  entirely 
behind  the  age.  The  average  annual  number  of  deaths  for  some  years 
has  exceeded  three  thousand  five  hundred.  Making  all  allowances  for 
interments  in  Mount  Auburn,  and  other  suburban  cemeteries,  there 
cannot  be  much  less  than  two  thousand  human  bodies  annually  con- 
signed to  their  rest  within  the  boundaries  of  Boston,  —  all  deposited  in 
tombs.  Such  an  amount  of  accumulating  decomposition  cannot  but 
tend,  in  some  degree,  to  impair  the  purity  of  the  atmosphere ;  and  the 
evil,  as  our  population  increases,  will  daily  become  more  serious.  It 
cannot  be  doubted  that  a  desirable  burial  lot  may  be  obtained  at  no  great 
distance  from  Boston,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  some  of  our  numerous  rail- 
roads, which  would  furnish  ample  facilities  for  conveyance  of  funeral 
trains.  The  example  of  the  enlightened  cityT  of  Roxbury,1  in  this 
respect,  is  worthy  of  our  imitation.  For  a  lot,  similar  to  that  recently 
consecrated  there,  the  expense  would  be  inconsiderable,  and  would  soon 
be  liquidated  by  charging  a  small  fee  for  the  right  of  sepulture. 

The  committee  to  whom  this  address  was  referred  reported 
in  April,  1849,  recommending  the  passage  of  an  ordinance, 
prohibiting  burials  in  any  part  of  South  Boston  north  of 
Dorchester  and  east  of  Seventh  streets,  excepting  in  the 
tombs  of  Saint  Matthew's  Church.  Appended  to  this  report 
are  the  depositions  of  several  persons  in  regard  to  the  dan- 
gerous condition  of  one  of  the  burying-grounds  in  South 
Boston.2 

This  committee  afterwards  obtained  the  passage  of  an  act 
(chap.  150,  1849),  authorizing  the  City  of  Boston  to  estab- 
lish a  public  cemetery  in  any  town  in  the  Commonwealth 
(the  consent  of  the  town  to  be  first  obtained),  and  to  make 
and  establish  all  suitable  rules,  orders,  and  regulations  for  the 
interment  of  the  dead  therein. 

On  the  27th  of  September,  1849,  this  committee  reported 
that  they  had  obtained  this  act,  and  recommended  the  passage 
of  an  order,  authorizing  them  to  purchase  a  suitable  lot  of 
land,  without  the  limits  of  the  city,  at  an  expense  not 
exceeding  $25,000. 

The  committee  again  reported,  on  the  11th  of  October, 
1849, 3  giving  their  views  of  a  plan  for  a  cemetery,  and  urging 
the  passage  of  the  order  which  they  had  previously  offered. 
The  committee  say :  "  The  committee  believe  it  to  be  con- 

1  Alluding  to  the  establishment  by  Roxbury  of  Forost  Hill  Cemetery. 

2  City  Document  No.  28,  1849. 

3  City  Document  No.  51,  1849. 


18  City  Document  No.  96. 

ceded  by  all,  that  no  more  interments  should  take  place 
within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Boston,  .  .  .  the  rea- 
sons for  which  must  be  obvious.  .  .  .  The  increasing 
growth  of  our  population,  the  limited  amount  of  soil  pos- 
sessed by  us,  the  evidences,  furnished  by  all  preceding  gen- 
erations, of  the  poisonous  nature  of  the  decomposing  matter 
of  human  bodies,  all  conspire  to  render  this  a  fixed  fact." 

The  committee  quote  an  article  which  appeared  in  the 
London  "  Times  "  of  December  29,  1848,  on  intramural  inter- 
ments, which  says:  "This  subject  is  incomparably  painful 
and  revolting,  but  it  is,  at  the  same  time,  of  such  importance 
to  the  health  of  the  community,  that  it  must  be  enforced 
upon  the  public  attention  again  and  again.  Any  measure  for 
the  health  of  the  metropolis,  which  shall  not  include  as  one 
of  its  principal  features  an  absolute  veto  upon  intramural 
interments,  will  be  incomplete  and  ineffective.  Let  no  one 
deceive  himself  with  the  idea  that,  however  fortunately  he 
may  be  placed,  he  is  preserved  from  the  danger  of  infection 
from  this  source." 

The  committee  express  their  firm  conviction,  that  the  voice 
of  reason  and  Christianity  both  call  aloud  and  demand  of  the 
City  Government  the  immediate  passage  of  a  law  which  shall 
close,  at  once  and  forever,  the  burial-grounds,  as  well  as  all 
other  places  of  interment,  within  the  city  limits. 

During  the  following  December  the  same  committee  made 
another  report,  giving  the  results  of  their  endeavors  to 
secure  a  suitable  lot  for  a  cemetery.1  A  list  of  the  lots 
which  they  examined  is  given,  and  they  recommend  the  pur- 
chase of  a  lot  in  Maiden.  They  again  urge  the  passage  of 
the  order  making  the  appropriation. 

The  subject  was  finally  referred  to  the  next  City  Govern- 
ment. 

In  his  inaugural  address  for  1850,  Mayor  Bigelow  again 
alluded  to  the  subject,  as  follows  :  — 

I  would  again  call  the  attention  of  the  City  Council  to  the  necessity 
of  making  early  and  adequate  provision,  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the 
city,  for  the  burial  of  the  dead.  Every  one  of  our  cemeteries  is  already 
full,  to  an  extent  which,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  is  prejudicial  to  the 
public  health.  Indeed,  during  the  prevalence  of  the  epidemic  it  became 
necessary  to  disuse  several  of  our  burying-grounds,  not  really  on 
account  of  offensive  exhalations,  but  for  want  of  actual  space  for  addi- 
tional interments.  This  state  of  things  is  discreditable  to  Boston,  and 
is  inconsistent  with  a  due  regard  to  the  safety  of  its  citizens.  It  may 
easily  be  remedied  without  involving  any  very  large  expenditure. 

This  part  of  the  address  was  referred  to  a  special  com- 
mittee, who  were  also  requested  to  examine  existing  ordi- 

1  City  Dooument  No.  59,  1849. 


Intramural  Interments.  19 

nances,  and  see  what  amendments  were  necessary.  The 
committee  reported  11th  of  December,  1850. 1  The  report 
gives  the  number  of  burials  in  the  city  for  1849  (1,179)  and 
ten  months  of  1850  (689).  The  burials  in  the  city  proper 
were  mostly  in  family  tombs,  and  the  committee  do  not 
think  that  the  public  good  requires,  or  that  public  opinion 
would  sanction,  the  passage  of  an  ordinance  by  which  all  in- 
terments in  family  tombs  would  be  prohibited.  The  statistics 
of  each  year  indicate  that  the  number  of  interments  in  tombs 
is  annually  decreasing ;  a  few  years  will  show  a  more  marked 
decrease  than  during  the  past  five  years.  It  is  a  matter  of 
congratulation  that  a  subject  of  this  nature  can  be  safely  left 
to  the  gradual,  but  sure  and  potent,  influence  of  a  correct 
public  sentiment ;  and  that,  by  the  silent  operation  of  agen- 
cies which  now  engage  public  attention,  many  of  the  evils 
attending  the  use  of  tombs  in  our  city  will  be  corrected 
without  the  interference  of  stringent  municipal  regulations. 
The  enormous  abuses  which  have  been  brought  to  the  public 
notice  by  the  recent  investigation  of  the  subject  of  intramu- 
ral burials  in  England,  can  never,  it  is  thought,  exist  in  this 
country.  The  idea  that  the  revolting  and  terrible  scenes 
which  have  been  officially  authenticated  before  the  proper 
authorities  in  England,  in  relation  to  the  burial  of  the  dead, 
can  ever  occur  in  New  England,  is  an  insult  alike  to  the  nat- 
ural feelings,  and  to  the  moral  sense  of  our  population. 
There  is  no  similarity  in  the  condition  of  the  two  communi- 
ties in  relation  to  the  subject  of  the  burial  of  the  dead,  and 
the  popular  sentiment  and  legislative  action  which  have 
recently  taken  place  in  England  are  not  applicable  to  this 
country,  particularly  to  a  city  like  Boston. 

The  committee  advertised  for  a  lot  for  a  cemetery,  but 
failed  to  find  one  which  was  satisfactory.  Referring  to  two 
cemeteries  which  are  about  to  be  started  at  different  points 
from  the  city,  the  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  wants 
of  the  citizens  will  be  well  served  by  their  establishment, 
and  recommend  that  no  further  action  be  taken  upon  the 
subject  of  purchasing  for  a  cemetery  to  be  controlled  by  the 
city.  The  committee  recommend  that  a  lot  of  land,  owned 
by  the  city,  situated  on  the  borders  of  Dedham,  be  set  apart 
for  a  cemetery,  to  be  used  when  the  wants  of  the  population 
shall  require  additional  burial  facilities,  and  that  an  appro- 
priation be  made  for  ornamenting  the  grounds  with  forest 
trees,  in  anticipation  of  its  future  use  for  that  purpose. 
This  report  was  accepted. 

In  1851  Mount  Hope  Cemetery  was  established  by  a  pri- 

1  City  Document  No.  39,  1850. 


20  City  Document  No.  96. 

vate  corporation,  organized  under  the  General  Statutes, 
Chap.  2$,  and  was  consecrated  June  24,  1852. 

In  his  inaugural  address,  1851,  Mayor  Bigelow  expressed 
his  satisfaction  that  during  the  preceding  year  private 
enterprise  had,  in  a  great  measure,  remedied  the  wants  of 
the  community  in  regard  to  suitable  burial  accommodations, 
by  the  establishment  of  extensive  and  well-located  cemeteries 
in  Maiden  and  Dorchester.1 

In  his  inaugural  address,  in  1853,  Mayor  Seaver  says:  — 

The  practice  of  interments  of  the  dead  within  the  limits  of  the  city 
has  been  a  subject  of  anxiety  for  several  years  past,  and  I  think  the 
time  has  arrived  when  the  question  should  be  seriously  considered  as  to 
what  measures  are  proper  to  be  taken  to  prohibit  it.  Many  intelligent 
medical  gentlemen  are  of  opinion  that  the  public  health  demands  such  pro- 
hibition, and  it  has  been  hoped  that  the  increasing  disposition  among  the 
citizens  to  provide  burial  lots  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city  will,  at  no  very 
distant  day,  lead  to  the  discontinuance  of  this  practice.  .  .  .  The 
subject  has,  I  am  aware,  many  difficulties,  but  I  trust  that  some 
measures  may  be  adopted  to  remove  the  evil  without  too  great  an  in- 
fringement on  private  rights,  or  the  wounding  of  private  feeling. 

On  the  28th  of  February  an  order  was  passed  directing 
the  Mayor  to  petition  the  Legislature  for  an  act  authorizing 
the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  to  prohibit  any  and  all  interments 
within  the  limits  of  the  city  proper  when  they  shall  deem  it 
expedient  to  do  so. 

On  the  14th  of  March  an  order  was  passed  directing  the 
City  Registrar  to  grant  no  license  to  bury  or  inter  any  dead 
body  in  either  of  the  following-named  burial  grounds,  on. 
and  after  the  first  day  of  the  following  July,  viz.  :  the 
Hull-street  Burial-ground,  the  Granary  Burial-ground,  the 
Chapel  Burial-ground,  and  the  tombs  under  Trinity  Church, 
Christ's  Church,  and  Park-street  Church. 

Later  in  the  year  the  wardens  and  vestry  of  Trinity  and 
Christ's  Church  petitioned  to  be  exempted  from  the  terms  of 
the  order.  Their  petitions  were  referred  to  a  committee  who 
reported  that  the  order  was  wise  and  judicious  and  recom- 
mended that  the  petitioners  have  leave  to  withdraw. 

In  1854  the  proprietors  of  St.  Matthew's  Church  peti- 
tioned that  interments  might  be  prohibited  in  the  cemetery 
of  that  church.  The  petition  wras  referred  to  a  committee, 
who  reported,  July  24,  "  That  their  attention  has  been  par- 
ticularly called  to  the  subject  of  intramural  interments  in 
those  places  in  the  city  whjch  were  excepted  from  the  order 
of  the  Board  of  1853,  and  they  are  fully  satisfied  that  intra- 
mural interments  should  be  abridged  within  this  city  as  far 
as  possible,  and  that  no  measure  appertaining  to  the  public 

1  Woodlawn  and  Mount  Hope. 


Intramural  Interments.  21 

health  is  so  important  as  this."  They  recommended  the 
passage  of  an  order  closing  certain  burial-grounds.  The 
report  was  recommitted. 

The  committee  again  reported,  July  31,  taking  stronger 
grounds  than  before  against  the  practice  of  intramural  inter- 
ments ;   they  say  :  — 

The  committee  have  in  no  way  changed  their  views  in  regard  to 
interments  in  the  City  of  Boston.  The  territory  is  so  limited,  and  the 
increase  of  population  such,  as  to  render  it  morally  certain  that  the  accu- 
mulation of  decomposing  human  bodies  at  the  ordinary  rate  of  mortality, 
if  burials  are  continued,  must  prove  essentially  prejudicial  to  the  living. 
Aside  from  the  combined  testimony  of  all  intelligent  medical  men,  to 
the  evil  consequences  of  stowing  decaying  animal  remains  under 
churches  and  in  tombs,  in  compact  settlements,  it  is  the  common  senti- 
ment of  this  community,  freely  expressed,  that  burials  should  no  longer 
be  tolerated  in  Boston.  Where  an  opinion  is  advanced  in  opposition  to 
this  philosophical  conclusion,  it  is  generally  based  on  some  reference  to 
a  property  interest.  Throughout  Great  Britain  measures  have  been 
energetically  adopted  to  prevent  further  interments  in  populous  cities. 
If,  by  the  increase  of  a  terrible  nuisance,  the  people  cannot  occupy 
residences  contiguous  to  these  vast  receptacles  of  the  dead,  in  sev- 
eral sections  of  the  city,  on  account  of  the  offensive  odors  perpetually 
wafted  from  them  through  the  air,  —  a  condition  of  things  that  may  cer- 
tainly be  anticipated,  —  it  is  an  act  of  humanity,  as  well  as  official  obliga- 
tion, to  prevent  a  calamity  which  has  had  its  origin  from  such  a  source 
in  other  cities.  A  train  of  injurious  effects  arising  from  ftetid  exhala- 
tions and  destructive  gases  emanating  from  putrid  animal  matter  might 
be  collected  in  melancholy  array,  to  sustain  the  position  taken  by  the 
committee ;  but  the  fact  that  a  simple  declaration  of  the  facts  set  forth 
in  the  history  of  intramural  burials  are  all  that  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  require.  Several  rural  cemeteries  in  the  vicinity,  distinguished 
for  beauty  of  location,  are  accessible  at  all  seasons,  and  at  moderate 
prices.  A  large  majority  of  citizens,  bereft  of  their  friends  by  death, 
prefer  these  tastefully  prepared  grounds,  where  no  encroachments  inci- 
dent to  the  march  of  business  would  hereafter  disturb  the  sacred  re- 
mains of  those  deposited  there.  A  knowledge,  however,  of  the  conse- 
quences that  may  follow  a  continuance  of  the  custom  of  intramural 
burials  in  the  midst  of  a  thickly  inhabited  city  must  obviously,  upon  the 
broad  principle  of  self-preservation,  be  abandoned,  and  it  will  redound 
to  the  official  credit  of  the  Board  of  Health  to  close  every  yard  and 
forbid  the  opening  of  another  tomb  in  Boston,  till  their  present  con- 
tents have  entirely  disappeared. 

The  report  was  laid  on  the  table  and  the  committee  were 
requested  to  consider  the  expediency  of  prohibiting  the 
interment  of  the  dead  in  any  burial-place  within  the  limits  of 
the  city.  In  response  to  this  order  the  committee  reported 
recommending  that  the  further  consideration  of  the  subject 
be  postponed  until  the  city  could  provide  a  burial-place 
beyond  the  city  limits. 

On  the  9th  of  October  an  order  was  adopted  directing  the 
City  Registrar  to  issue  no  permits  for  burials  in  the  burying- 
ground  on  Dorchester,  Sixth,  and  F  streets,  and  under  St. 
Matthew's  Church,  and  in  Copp's  Hill  ground. 


22  City  Document  No.  9b\ 

In  1855,  Mayor  Smith,  in  his  inaugural  address,  recom- 
mended that  a  tract  of  land  situated  in  Read vi lie,  belonging  to 
the  city,  should  be  set  apart  for  a  burial  field  and  suitably 
ornamented.  He  complained  of  the  offensive  condition  of  the 
tombs  in  the  Washington-street  Burying-ground,  and  recom- 
mended that  they  be  sunk  underground  below  the  sidewalk 
and  an  iron  fence  substituted  for  the  stone  wall  in  front.  He 
says  :  — 

Burials  within  the  city  are  not  to  be  continued  after  April,  without 
special  permission,  under  peculiar  circumstances,  and  then  but  tempo- 
rarily. Masses  of  decomposing  animal  remains  in  tombs  and  under 
churches  cannot  remain  there  with  impunity  in  the  heart  of  a  city.  An 
interdiction  of  intramural  burials  is  the  first  sanitary  law  that  should  be 
rigidly  observed. 

During  the  year  active  measures  were  undertaken  to  de- 
crease the  number  of  burials  within  the  city  limits  and  to 
abate  the  nuisances  which  then  existed  from  this  cause. 

An  order  was  passed,  April  lti,  authorizing  the  committee 
to  sink  the  tombs  in  the  South  Burying-ground  below  the 
level  of  the  ground,  and  to  remove  entirely  the  tombs  owned 
by  the  city. 

On  the  23d  of  April  the  Committee  on  Cemeteries  were 
authorized  to  offer  each  owner  of  a  tomb  within  the  limits 
of  the  city  a  sub-soil  lot  in  one  of  the  suburban  cemeteries, 
on  condition  that  the  right  to  the  tomb  be  forever  relin- 
quished to  the  city,  to  the  end  that  the  tomb  may  be  forever 
closed. 

On  the  10th  of  September  the  City  Registrar  was  directed 
not  to  issue  permits  to  undertakers  to  deposit  bodies  in 
tombs  for  purposes  of  speculation. 

On  the  24th  of  September  the  Mayor  sent  a  communica- 
tion to  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  calling  attention  to  an  act 
passed  by  the  last  Legislature  in  relation  to  burials,  which, 
among  other  things,  authorized  owners  of  tombs  to  appeal  to 
a  jury  from  the  order  of  the  Board  of  Health,  in  regard  to 
closing  a  tomb.  He  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  act  was 
liable  to  occasion  great  expense  to  the  city  by  causing  intermi- 
nable lawsuits.  It  completely  paralyzed  the  efforts  of  the 
city  to  gradually  abolish  intramural  interments  and  arrested 
the  wise  and  judicious  measures  which  had  been  adopted  to 
that  end.  He  recommended  that  the  orders  adopted  March 
14,  1^53,  and  October  9,  1854,  be  rescinded  and  burials 
be  permitted  in  any  and  all  burial-grounds  and  tombs  in 
Boston. 

The  communication  was  referred  to  a  committee,  who 
reported  an  order  rescinding  and  declaring  null  and  void  the 
orders  referred  to. 


Intramural  Interments.  23 

Mt.  Hope  Cemetery  was  conveyed  to  the  city  by  deed 
dated  July  31,  1857,  for  the  sum  of  $35,000.  The  Board  of 
Trustees  was  organized  Feb.  19,  1858,  and  they  submitted 
their  first  report  in  in  1859. L  In  his  annual  report  for  1859,2 
the  City  Physician,  Dr.  Henry  G.  Clark,  congratulated  the 
City  Council  that  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  intramural 
interments  has  been  forever  terminated  by  the  establishment 
of  Mt.  Hope  Cemetery,  —  "thus  removing  the  last  obstruc- 
tion to  the  discontinuance  of  a  practice  fraught  with  so  much 
discomfort  and  danger  to  the  living."  Four  and  three-fourths 
acres  have  been  set  off  for  the  benefit  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city,  free  of  charge,  and  is  known  as  the  City  Cemetery. 
In  1868  the  city  purchased  an  additional  lot  of  twenty  acres 
for  $14,000.  The  cemetery  contains,  at  the  present  time,  an 
area  of  about  one  hundred  and  five  acres. 

Undoubtedly  the  origin  of  extra-mural  interment  is  to  be 
traced  to  the  fact  that  the  ancients  early  perceived  that  they 
could  not  retain  the  remains  of  the  dead  in  their  habitations 
with  impunity  to  the  living.  Embalmment  midit  remove 
the  offensiveness,  but  the  accumulation  of  remains  in  course 
of  time  soon  became  too  great  to  be  retained  within  the 
limits  of  the  cities,  and  too  burdensome  a  care  for  the  sur- 
vivors ;  therefore  a  special  place  of  deposit  became  necessary.3 
Cremation  likewise  demanded  a  place  for  the  preservation  of 
the  ashes,  and  involved  much  additional  expense  ;  in  fact, 
special  objections  attended  every  method  of  disposing  of  the 
dead  ;  but  inhumation  was  probably  shown,  by  experience,  to 
be  least  objectionable  of  all,  when  performed  under  proper 
restrictions.  Hence  the  most  ancient  practice  of  any,  that 
of  putting  the  body  away  in  a  grave  or  tomb,  to  be  resolved 
into  its  original  elements  by  the  natural  methods,  again 
prevailed.  The  evil  effects  of  this  method  arise  from  its 
abuse. 

It  would  seem  almost  unnecessary,  at  the  present  advanced 
stage  of  sanitary  knowledge,  to  endeavor  to  prove  that  the 
burial  of  the  dead  in  the  vicinity  of  habitations  is  injurious 
to  the  health  of  the  community ;  yet  it  may  not  be  deemed 
superfluous  to  cite  a  few  of  the  many  instances  on  record, 
to  show  the  evil  effects  of  the  practice. 

The  decomposition  of  bodies  gives  rise  to  a  very  large 
amount  of  carbonic  acid.  Ammonia  and  an  offensive  putrid 
vapor   are  also  given   off.     The   air  of  most  cemeteries  is 


i  City  Doc.  No.  10,  1859. 

2  City  Doc.  No.  9,  1859. 

3  Dr.  Latour,  in  "  L'Union  Medicale,"  remarks,  that  if  the  human  race  had,  for  the 
last  three  thousand  years,  practised  embalming,  there  would  not  have  been  to-day  a 
portion  of  the  earth's  surface  which  was  not  occupied  by  a  mummy. 


24  City  Document  No.  96. 

richer  in  carbonic  acid  (7  to  9  per  thousand  —  Ramon  de 
Luna),  and  the  organic  matter  is  perceptibly  larger  when 
tested  by  potassium  permanganate.  In  vaults,  the  air  con- 
tains much  carbonic  acid,  carbonate  or  sulphide  of  ammo- 
nium, nitrogen,  hydro-sulphuric  acid,  and  organic  matter. 
Fang]  and  germs  of  infusoria  abound.1 

The  influence  of  these  emanations  of  health  is  manifest  in 
proportion  to  the  degree  of  concentration.  It  is  evident  that 
in  a  very  concentrated  form  they  may  cause  asphyxia  and 
sudden  and  complete  extinction  of  life.  In  less  concentrated 
form  the  result  may  be  a  depression  of  the  vital  powers,  and 
a  disturbance  of  the  healthy  functions  of  the  system.  If  these 
effects  are  often  repeated,  and  the  putrefactive  emanations 
long  applied,  they  may  produce  fevers,  or  impart  to  fevers 
due  to  other  causes  a  typhoid  or  low  putrid  character.  Con- 
tagious material  may  also  be  present  in  the  effluvia  from  dead 
bodies.  The  putrefactive  exhalations  may  cause  the  most 
developed  form  of  typhus  fever.2 

The  disorders  commonly  complained  of  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  burial-grounds  are  headaches,  diarrhoea,  and  ulcer- 
ated sore  throats.  According  to  a  report  of  the  French 
Academy  of  Medicine,  the  putrid  emanations  of  Pere-la- 
Chaise,  Montmartre,  and  Montparnasse,  have  caused  frightful 
diseases  of  the  throat  and  lungs,  to  which  numbers  of  both 
sexes  fall  victims  every  year.  M  Thus  a  dreadful  throat  dis- 
ease, which  baffles  the  skill  of  our  most  experienced  medical 
men,  is  traced  to  the  absorption  of  vitiated  air  into  the  wind- 
pipe, and  has  been  observed  to  rage  with  the  greatest  vio- 
lence in  those  quarters  situated  nearest  the  cemeteries."3 

In  1764  Dr.  Haguenot,  a  professor  in  the  University  of 
Montpelier,  had  his  attention  called  to  the  danger  of  intra- 
mural interment  by  an  incident  which  he  relates,  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

On  the  17th  of  August,  1764,  the  body  of  a  layman  was  conveyed  to 
the  church  of  Notre  Dame  ;  while  lowering  the  corpse  a  man  first  went 
down  to  support  the  coffin,  and  fell  senseless;  another  followed  to 
assist  him,  and,  though  drawn  out  in  time,  was  afflicted  with  a  severe 
illness;  the  third  was  drawn  up  immediately;  a  fourth  dared  the 
danger,  and  died  as  soon  as  he  had  entered  the  vault ;  the  fifth  came 
out  once  to  recover  strength,  and,  returning  the  second  time,  staggered 
from  the  ladder  and  fell  dead.  The  bodies  at  last  were  drawn  up  with 
hooks.  In  the  neighborhood  of  the  church,  where  the  above  calamity 
took  place,  the  small-pox  broke  out  and  raged  with  great  violence. 
Dr.  Haguenot  made  many  experiments,  showing  its  influence  on  caus- 
ing fatal  or  epidemic  diseases.4 

^r.  Parkes'  Practical  Hygiene.     Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  3766.77. 

2  Hygiene  and  Public  Health,  N.Y.,  1879. 

3  Eassie. 

*  Pascal  is. 


Intramural  Interments.  25 

Dr.  Maret,  of  Dijon,  in  a  book  published  in  1773,  relates 
that  "a  catarrhal  affection,  or  influenza,  existed  in  Saulien,  a 
populous  town  of  Burgundy.  Two  persons  who  died  with 
it  were  buried  beside  each  other,  in  graves  dug  under  the 
pavement  of  the  parish  church,  within  an  interval  of  twenty- 
three  days.  The  coffin  of  the  first  accidentally  broke,  and  a 
quantity  of  putrid  fluid  was  effused,  which  in  an  instant  filled 
the  whole  building  with  a  stench  intolerable  to  the  by- 
standers, and  out  of  one  hundred  and  seventy  persons  one 
hundred  and  forty  were  seized  with  putrid  malignant  fever, 
which  assumed  the  character  of  an  epidemic,  differing  only 
in  intensity  and  fatality.1 

Dr.  Navier,  an  eminent  physician  of  Chalons,  wrote  in 
1775  on  the  subject  of  inhumation.  He  states  that  the  con- 
fidence with  which  cemeteries  were  suffered  to  exist  in  large 
and  populous  cities  is  founded  on  the  erroneous  belief  that 
bodies  in  the  earth  are  very  soon  destroyed ;  but  this  is  far 
from  being  the  case.  He  ascertained  that  four  years  are  not 
a  sufficient  period  for  this  purpose  ;  and  relates  that,  having 
examined  three  bodies  disinterred,  —  the  one  after  twenty,  the 
second  after  eleven,  the  third  after  seven  years, — he  found 
the  bones  were  still  invested  with  some  flesh  and  integu- 
ments ;  from  which  it  is  certain  that,  whatever  receptacles  of 
the  dead  are  opened,  there  is  unavoidably  a  contamination 
of  the  air,  or  some  attacks  of  disease  occasioned  or  in- 
creased ;  this  he  says  he  has  often  witnessed.  He  attributes 
the  abuses  which  existed  in  burying-grounds  at  that  time  to 
the  selfish  and  unreasonable  custom  of  burying  the  dead 
among  the  living,  —  a  custom  kept  in  operation  by  vanity, 
avarice,  and  superstition.1 

During  the  general  disinterment  of  the  remains  of  the  dead 
in  Paris,  in  1785,  a  number  of  grave-diggers  were  killed  on 
the  spot  by  the  poisonous  gases  which  arose  from  the  graves, 
although  the  exhumation  was  performed  in  the  winter.  The 
neighborhood  of  the  Cemetery  of  the  Innocents  had  become 
extremely  unhealthy,  and  the  neighbors  had  complained  for 
several  years  of  the  offensiVeness  of  the  cemetery.  Since  the 
removal  of  the  remains  the  vicinity  has  become  very  healthy. 
M.  Fourcroy,  who  superintended  the  disinterment,  wished  to 
make  further  researches  into  the  nature  of  the  gases  evolved 
from  bodies  ;  but  he  could  find  no  grave-digger  who  could  be 
induced,  even  by  a  promised  reward,  to  assist  in  its  collec- 
tion, because  it  resulted  in  almost  sudden  death  if  inhaled  in 
a  concentrated  form  near  the  body,  and  even  at  a  distance, 
when  diluted  and  diffused  through  the  atmosphere,  produced 

1  Pascalis. 


26  City  Document  No.  96. 

depression  of  the  nervous  system,  and  an  entire  disorder  of 
its  functions. 

In  1814  a  battalion  of  militia  was  stationed  in  a  lot  on 
Broadway,  the  rear  of  which  bounded  on  Potter's  field,  from 
whence  a  most  deadly  effluvia  arose.  A  number  of  the 
soldiers  were  attacked  with  diarrhoea  and  fever.  They  were 
removed  at  once  ;  one  of  the  sick  died,  and  the  others  rapidly 
recovered.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Joseph  Ackerly,  that 
Trinity  church-yard  was  an  active  cause  of  the  yellow  fever 
in  New  York  in  1822,  and  that  it  aggravated  the  malignity 
of  the  disease  in  its  vicinity.  The  effluvia  was  so  offensive 
as  to  annoy  passengers  on  the  surrounding  streets  before  the 
yellow  fever  commenced.  The  virulence  of  the  disease  in 
the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  cemetery  called  for  active 
measures  on  the  part  of  the  authorities,  and  the  yard  was 
covered  with  quicklime,  fifty-two  casks  being  used.  During 
the  operation  the  excessive  stench  caused  several  of  the 
laborers  employed  in  the  work  to  vomit.1 

In  1828,  Professor  Bianchi  explained  how  the  dire  reap- 
pearance of  the  plague  in  Modena  was  due  to  an  excavation 
made  in  the  ground  where,  three  hundred  years  previously, 
the  victims  of  the  disease  had  been  interred.2  The  outbreak 
of  the  plague  in  Egypt,  in  1823,  was  traced  to  the  opening 
of  a  disused  burial-ground  at  Kelioub,  fourteen  miles  from 
Cairo.2  In  1843,  when  the  parish  church  of  Menchinhamp- 
ton  was  rebuilding,  the  soil  of  the  burial-ground,  or  what 
was  superfluous,  was  disposed  of  for  manure,  and  deposited 
in  many  of  the  neighboring  gardens.  The  result  was  that 
the  town  was  nearly  decimated.2 

Tardieu  states  that  in  1830,  at  the  Marche  des  Innocents, 
on  the  site  of  an  old  cemetery,  temporary  burials  were  made, 
and  a  ditch  was  dug  twelve  feet  by  seven,  and  ten  feet  deep. 
When  the  pavement  was  removed  and  about  six  inches  of 
sand  beneath  it,  they  came  upon  a  black,  greasy  soil,  filled 
with  bones  and  pieces  of  coffins,  and  exhaling  such  fetid 
odors  that  one  of  the  workmen  was  suddenly  suffocated.  At 
Riom,  in  Auvergne,  the  earth  of  an  ancient  cemetery  was  dug 
up  to  embellish  the  city.  A  little  while  after  an  epidemic 
occurred,  which  carried  off  a  great  number  of  persons,  and 
was  most  fatal  near  the  cemetery.  The  same  thing  caused 
an  epidemic,  six  years  before,  in  a  small  town  of  the  same 
province,  called  Embert.3 

The  epidemic  of  yellow  fever  in  Charleston,  S.  C,  in  1838- 
39,  was  attributed  to  the  decomposition  of  animal  and  vege- 

1  Allen. 
a  Eassie. 
3  A  Treatise  on  Hygiene  and  Publio  Health,  N.  Y.,  1879. 


Intramural  Interments.  27 

table  matter.  A  report  upon  the  subject  recommended  bury- 
ing the  dead  without  the  limits  of  the  city.1 

Dr.  Shank2  relates  the  case  of  a  man  who  died  of  cholera 
in  California,  in  1850,  and  who  was  buried  with  his  cloak 
around  him.  The  natives  exhumed  the  body  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  the  cloak,  and  six  of  them  died  of  cholera. 

During  the  prevalence  of  the  cholera  in  Burlington,  Iowa, 
in  July,  1850,  a  number  of  the  dead  were  interred  in  the 
city  cemetery.  No  deaths  occurred  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  cemetery  until  about  twenty  had  been  buried  there  ; 
after  this,  until  the  epidemic  ceased,  cases  occurred,  and 
always  in  the  direction  from  the  cemetery  in  which  the  wind 
blew.3 

During  the  epidemic  of  yellow  fever  at  New  Orleans,  in 
1853,  it  appears  that  in  the  fourth  district  the  rate  of  mor- 
tality was  four  hundred  and  fifty-two  per  thousand  of  the 
population,  being  more  than  double  that  of  any  other  district. 
There  are  three  extensive  cemeteries  in  this  district,  in  which 
were  buried  during  the  preceding  year  nearly  three  thousand 
bodies.  The  third  ward  of  tKis  district  contained  all  the 
cemeteries  and  most  of  the  vacheires,  and  the  proportion  of 
deaths  in  this  ward  was  five  hundred  and  eight  per  thousand. 
The  authorities  were  advised  to  close  the  cemeteries  within 
the  city  against  future  use.4 

The  virulence  of  the  cholera  in  London,  in  1854,  was  en- 
hanced by  the  excavations  made  for  sewers  in  the  site  where, 
in  1665,  the  victims  of  the  plague  were  buried.5 

In  1855  the  yellow  fever  carried  off  forty-five  per  cent,  of 
the  population  of  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth,  Va.  In  a  paper 
upon  the  subject,6  Dr.  Bryant  attributes  the  virulence  of  the 
disease  to  decomposing  animal  matter.  He  recommends  the 
disinterment  of  the  dead,  and  their  removal  to  a  distance  of 
not  less  than  eight  miles  from  the  city,  together  with  the 
total  prohibition  of  intramural,  or  even  suburban,  cemeteries. 
He  believes  that  if  this  is  not  done  it  is  unquestionable  that 
sporadic,  and,  at  intervals,  epidemic  yellow  fever  will  pre- 
vail. 

The  investigation  by  the  committee  of  Parliament,  in 
1842,  elicited  a  vast  amount  of  conclusive  testimony  as  to 
the  evil  effects  of  the  exhalations  from  burying-grounds  and 
cemeteries  upon  the  public  health.     It  was  shown  that  typhus 

1  Rauoh. 

2  Hay's  Medical  Journal. 
,  s  Rauch. 

4  Report  of  the  Sanitary  Commission  on  the  Epidemio  of  Yellow  Fever  in  1853, 
published  by  authority  of  the  City  Council  of  N.O.,  by  Dr.  E.  H,  Barton,  1854. 

e  Cooper  "  On  the  Cause  of  Some  Epidemics,"  Glasoow,  1874. 

s  American  Journal  of  Medioal  Soiences,  April,  1856.  Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  3736.1. 
Vol.  xxxi. 


28  City  Document  No.  96. 

and  other  fevers  were  prevalent  in  the  neighborhood  of  such 
places.  Persons  employed  upon  the  grounds  testified  to 
suffering  from  inhaling  the  foetid  odors  which  arose  from  the 
graves  and  vaults.  Houses  in  the  vicinity  of  burying- 
grounds  were  found  to  be  infected  and  rendered  unhealthy 
by  the  poisonous  £ases.  In  his  testimony  before  the  com- 
mittee, Sir  James  Fellowes,  M.D.,  says  :  — 

It  becomes  a  serious  question  with  an  increased  and  increasing  popu- 
lation upon  what  rational  grounds  such  an  objectionable  feature  can  be 
longer  continued  without  danger  to  the  public  health. 

Dr.  Southwood  Smith,  of  London,  states  that  "the  miasms 
arising  from  church-yards  are  in  general  too  much  diluted 
by  the  surrounding  air  to  strike  the  neighboring  inhabitants 
with  sudden  and  severe  disease  ;  yet  they  may  materially  in- 
jure the  health,  and  the  evidence  appears  to  me  to  be  decisive 
that  they  often  do  so."1 

James  Copeland,  M.D.,  Censor  of  the  Royal  College  of 
Physicians,  says  :  — 

I  believe  that  the  health  of  large  towns  is  influenced  by  four  or  five 
particular  circumstances :  the  first,  and  probably  the  most  important, 
is  the  burial  of  the  dead  in  large  towns.  In  considering  the  burials  in 
large  towns,  we  have  to  consider  not  only  the  exhalations  of  the  gases, 
and  the  emanations  of  the  dead  into  the  air,  but  the  effect  it  has  upon 
the  sub-soil,  or  the  water  drank  by  the  inhabitants. 

Other  eminent  physicians  testified  to  the  same  effect. 
Mr.  Chadwick  sums  up  the  result  of  his  investigations,  as 
follows  :  — 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  emanations  from  human  remains  are  of  a 
nature  to  produce  fatal  diseases,  and  to  depress  the  general  health  of 
all  who  are  exposed  to  them,  and  that  interments  in  the  vaults  of 
churches,  or  in  graveyards  surrounded  by  inhabited  houses,  contribute 
to  the  mass  of  atmospheric  and  other  impurities  by  which  the  general 
health  and  average  duration  of  life  of  the  inhabitants  are  diminished. 

Numerous  cases  of  infection,  caused  by  the  emanations 
from  burial-grounds,  could  be  quoted  from  the  medical 
authorities  ;  but  it  is  believed  to  be  unnecessary.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  show  that  the  removal  of  the  dead  is  essential 
to  the  safety  of  the  living. 

We  have  thus  briefly  endeavored  to  trace  the  history  of 
intramural  interments,  and  to  present  some  facts  perti- 
nent to  the  subject.  It  would  seem  that  a  natural  feeling 
of  love,  and  the  dread  of  parting  from  those  dear  to  him, 
has  prompted  man  to  keep  the  remains  of  his  kindrejl 
and  friends  near  him ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  dictates 

1  Chadwiok. 


Inteamural  Interments.  29 

of  prudence  warned  him  of  the  danger  of  so  doing.  In 
fact,  the  history  of  the  subject  shows  a  continual  struggle 
between  the  atfectional  nature  and  sound  reason,  —  a  conflict 
between  the  head  and  the  heart.  The  laws  of  nature  cannot 
be  violated  with  impunity.  Nature  ordains  that,  when  life  is 
extinct,  the  materials  composing  all  living  forms  shall  return 
to  their  natural  affinities,  to  be  assimilated,  and  spring  into 
new  life  again.  Any  practice  inconsistent  with  this  order  is 
resented.  It  would  seem  as  though,  in  order  to  secure  this 
result,  the  decomposing  human  body  is  made  one  of  the  most 
horrible  and  offensive  objects  that  can  offend  the  senses  of 
the  living.  The  only  true  way  is  to  commit  the  body  to  the 
earth,  and  permit  the  repulsive  process  of  decomposition  to  go 
on  unseen.  This  can  only  be  properly  done  in  rural  cemeter- 
ies, where  the  space  will  permit  of  allowing  the  dead  to  rest 
undisturbed  until  the  body  returns  to  dust.  Within  the  city 
limits  land  is  too  valuable  to  be  devoted  to  such  uses.  The 
wants  of  the  living  and  the  demands  of  business  must 
necessarily  encroach  upon  the  dead  ;  besides,  there  is  some- 
thing incongruous  in  associating  the  peaceful  sleep  of  death 
with  the  din  and  bustle  of  city  life.  In  the  words  of  Dr. 
Jacob  Bigelow  :  — 

We  regard  the  relics  of  our  deceased  friends  and  kindred  for  what 
they  have  been,  and  not  for  what  they  are.  We  cannot  keep  in  our 
presence  the  degraded  image  of  the  original  frame ;  and,  if  some 
memorial  is  necessary  to  soothe  the  unsatisfied  want  which  we  feel 
when  bereaved  of  their  presence,  it  must  be  found  in  contemplating 
the  place  in  which  we  know  their  dust  is  hidden.  The  history  of  man- 
kind, in  all  ages,  shows  that  the  human  heart  clings  to  the  grave  of  its 
disappointed  wishes  ;  that  it  seeks  consolation  in  rearing  emblems  and 
monuments,  and  in  collecting  images  of  beauty  over  the  disappearing 
relics  of  humanity.  This  can  be  fitly  done,  not  in  the  tumultuous  ana 
harassing  din  of  cities,  not  in  the  gloomy  and  almost  unapproachable 
vaults  of  charnel-houses ;  but  amidst  the  quiet  verdure  of  the  field, 
under  the  broad  and  cheerful  light  of  heaven,  where  the  harmonious 
and  ever-changing  face  of  nature  reminds  us,  by  its  resuscitating  in- 
fluences, that  to  die  is  but  to  live  again.1 

The  question  of  closing  the  Granary  and  King's  Chapel 
Burying-grounds  is  not  surrounded  with  any  of  the  dis- 
agreeable circumstances  which  have  attended  like  questions 
in  the  past.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  present  condition 
of  these  grounds  renders  them  dangerous  to  the  public  health. 
Burials  are  infrequent,  and,  although  it  has  been  shown  that, 
under  certain  conditions,  one  decomposing  body  is  capable 
of  doing  much  harm,  but  little  danger  need  be  apprehended 
on  this  account.     But,  as  long  as  the  right  of  burial  is  main- 

1  Modern  Inquiries,  Boston,  1867.     Boston  Pub.  Lib.,  4407.4. 


30  City  Document  No.  96. 

tained  the  public  safety  is  continually  threatened.  While 
the  contingency  is  extremely  remote,  there  is  a  liability  that 
burials  might  become  more  frequent  and  the  tombs  be  filled, 
in  which  case  no  one  would  pretend  but  that  the  health  of 
the  city  would  be  endangered.  In  1849  the  Librarian  of  the 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  was  compelled  to  close  the 
windows  overlooking  King's  Chapel  Burying-ground,  on 
account  of  the  disagreeable  effluvia  which  arose  from  the 
graves.1  Since  history  repeats  itself,  it  is  well  to  guard 
against  such  an  occurrence  in  the  future.  Therefore,  the 
committee  believe  that,  as  a  prudential  measure,  it  is  advis- 
able to  close  the  tombs  at  the  present  time. 

The  reports  of  the  Board  of  Health  have  from  time  to 
time  called  attention  to  the  dilapidated  and  dangerous  con- 
dition of  the  tombs  in  our  burying-grounds,  and  to  the 
liability  of  accidents  from  this  cause.  Owing  to  the  diffi- 
culty of  tracing  the  ownership  of  such  tombs,  the  expense  of 
making  necessary  repairs  has  been  borne  by  the  city,  and 
has  amounted  to  no  inconsiderable  sum.  It  has  been  found 
that  the  rights  of  ownership  are  not  apt  to  be  very  strenuously 
asserted  when  any  expense  is  to  be  incurred.  Aside  from 
the  questions  of  danger  and  expense,  the  neglected  condition 
of  these  tombs  is  discreditable  to  the  city  and  inconsistent 
with  the  respect  due  the  dead. 

The  opposition  to  closing  the  tombs  arises  chiefly  from  an 
impression  among  the  proprietors  that  it  is  but  the  first  step 
towards  removing  the  remains  and  using  the  grounds  for 
other  purposes.  As  far  as  the  committee  are  concerned  this 
view  of  the  case  has  not  influenced  their  judgment  in  the 
slightest  degree.  They  believe  that  the  historical  value  of 
these  grounds,  as  mementos  of  the  past  history  of  the  city, 
is  too  great  to  admit  of  their  obliteration  ;  that  while  public 
sentiment  would  approve  of  closing  the  tombs  it  would  not 
sanction  the  destruction  of  the  grounds.  Another  objection 
is  found  in  the  desire  of  some  descendants  of  the  original 
proprietors  to  be  buried  with  their  ancestors.  This,  although 
a  purely  sentimental  objection,  is  entitled  to  respect,  for, 
with  many,  the  wish  to  be  laid  after  death  with  those  who 
were  dear  to  them  in  life,  is  a  feeling  too  deep  and  sacred  to 
be  lightly  treated. 

But,  in  dealing  with  questions  concerning  the  public  health, 
objections  founded  upon  sentiment  should  have  no  weight. 
Even  hereditary  rights  must  conform  to  the  changes  which 
time  brings  about.  The  hereditary  right  to  be  buried  in  a 
tomb  does  not  include  a  right  to  poison  the  air  and  endanger 

i  Dealings  with  the  Dead,  vol.  1.  L.  M.  Sargent,  Boston,  1856.  Boston  Pub.  Lib., 
2406.12. 


Intramural  Interments.  31 

the  health  of  the  survivors,  and,  from  a  purely  practical 
stand-point,  to  insist  upon  any  such  right  is  to  display  a 
selfish  disregard  of  the  public  welfare. 

Believing,  therefore,  that  the  practice  of  intramural  inter- 
ment is  a  relic  of  antiquity,  which  it  is  desirable,  for  many 
reasons,  to  abolish,  the  committee  respectfully  recommend 
the  passage  of  the  following  order. 

JOSEPH  A.  TUCKER, 
JOSIAH  8.  ROBINSON, 
GttORGE  T.  PERKINS, 
JAMES  J.  BARRY, 
GEORGE  H.  WYMAN. 

Ordered,  That  the  Board  of  Health  be  directed  to  grant 
no  permit  to  bury  or  inter  any  dead  body  in  either  the 
Granary  Burying-ground,  or  the  King's  Chapel  Burying- 
ground,  after  January  1,  1880. 


APPENDIX. 


ABSTRACT  OF  THE  STATEMENTS  BEFORE  THE  JOINT 
SPECIAL  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  CITY  COUNCIL  ON 
THE  SUBJECT  OF  CLOSING  THE  TOMBS  IN  THE 
KING'S  CHAPEL  AND  GRANARY  BURYING-GROUNDS. 

THE   GRANARY   BURYING-GROUND. 

Tuesday,  July  15,  1879 

The  committee  met  at  three  o'clock,  P.M. 

Present.  —  Alderman  Tucker,  Chairman  ;  Councilmen  Perkins, 
Barry. 

W.  H.  Whitmore  called  the  attention  of  the  chairman  to  the 
fact  that  the  names  on  the  list  were  those  of  the  original  grantees 
of  the  tombs  ;  that  the  tombs  have  been  transferred  from  time  to 
time,  and  by  reading  the  names  on  the  printed  list  the  chairman 
would  be  apt  to  mislead  some  of  those  present. 

Geo.  Wm.  Phillips  suggested  that  those  present  be  heard  ;  and 
if  they  could  satisfy  the  committee  that  no  tombs  should  be  closed, 
that  will  settle  the  decision  of  the  whole.  There  are  two  hundred 
and  four  tombs.  Some  one  who  is  away  might  be  willing  to  have 
his  tomb  shut ;  and  another,  for  a  satisfactory  reason,  would  pre- 
fer to  let  his  remain  open.  He  desired  the  inquiry  to  be  a  general 
one. 

The  Chairman  said  the  statute  required  that  if  any  parties 
present  represent  any  particular  tomb,  that  number  should  be 
taken  up ;  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  through  the  whole  list. 

James  M.  English,  representing  tomb  No.  1,  on  behalf  of 
himself  and  Dr.  Bethune,  grandson  of  the  gentleman  who  built  the 
tomb,  objected  to  its  being  closed.  They  had  taken  care  of  it  for  a 
number  of  years.  They  expect  and  desire  to  be  buried  there. 
They  inherited  it  from  the  builder.  It  has  been  abandoned  by  all 
the  other  heirs ;  and  the  present  owners  cannot  conceive  of  any 
public  necessit^y  for  closing  that  tomb.  There  has  not  been  an 
interment  in  it  for  ten  }Tears. 

In  reply  to  questions  by  Mr.  Whitmore,  Mr.  English  said  he 
could  not  state  by  what  title  the  tomb  is  held  at  present.  All  the 
other  descendants  had  abandoned  the  tomb  to  Dr.  Bethune  and 
himself.  There  are  many  other  persons  in  the  country  belonging 
to  the  family.  He  presumed  the  tomb  was  held  by  familv  inheri- 
tance. The  city  passed  an  ordinance  some  years  ago,  and  at- 
tempted to  prevent  interments  there.  He  and  his  sister  and  Dr. 
Bethune  made  an  application  to  the  court,  in  the  nature  of  an 
appeal,  but  before  it  came  to  trial  the  order  was  repealed. 


Appendix.  33 

In  reply  to  questions  by  Mr.  Perkins,  Mr.  English  said  all  but 
two  of  the  family  had  abandoned  it ;  that  not  long  ago  it  had-  been 
cleaned  oat,  and  everything  put  in  order,  for  which  the}-  paid  the 
undertaker.  Everything  offensive  was  removed ;  the  skeletons 
were  put  into  boxes,  and  properly  marked.  Dr.  Bethune  and 
himself  had  looked  after  it  for  the  past  twent}*  years.  Should 
think  there  had  been  no  interments  there  for  about  fourteen  years. 
John  Bethune  was  put  into  the  Faneuil  tomb  about  fourteen  years 
ago.  The  tomb  is  at  present  in  perfect  order.  It  is  an  old  family 
tomb  ;  his  ancestors  had  been  buried  there,  and  he  should  like  to 
lie  with  them  unless  it  is  injurious  to  the  health  of  the  city ;  and  it 
it  is  the  owners  will  submit.  It  is  supposed  by  persons  interested 
in  the  tombs  that  the  ultimate  object  is  to  use  that  ground  for 
other  purposes  ;  and  if  the  use  of  the  tombs  can  be  prevented  all 
their  value  is  gone,  and  the  cit\-  may  take  it  for  any  public  use, 
without  being  obliged  to  make  compensation.  He  did  not  think 
there  is  any  foundation  for  that,  because  it  struck  him  as  scandal- 
ous to  suppose  that  the  city  would  get  possession  of  the  ground 
for  nothing,  to  prevent  its  use  b}'  the  present  owners  when  that  use 
is  not  injurious  to  the  public  health. 

George  W.  Phillips,  representing  tomb  No.  60,  appeared  and 
objected  to  its  being  closed.  In  it  are  buried  his  father,  the  first 
ma3'or  of  Boston,  his  wife,  and  nearly  all  of  his  children,  and  the 
wife  and  children  of  himself.  In  1853  a  movement  similar  to  this 
was  made,  and  Dr.  John  C.  Warren,  a  high  authority  on  sanitary 
matters,  who  lived  on  Park  street,  headed  the  remonstrances,  and 
scouted  the  idea  that  there  was  anything  unhealthy  in  continuing 
burials  there,  and  who,  rather  than  have  the  graveyard  closed, 
would  be  willing  to  have  another  in  front  of  his  house.  Mr. 
Phillips  had  looked  through  the  records  of  the  past  few  years,  and 
found  that  from  1873  to  1879  there  have  been  only  fourteen  inter- 
ments ;  in  1873,  seven  ;  in  1874,  two  ;  in  1875,  one  ;  in  1876,  four  ; 
in  1877,  four;  and  in  1878,  two.  If  this  were  a  nuisance  the 
Tremont  House,  with  its  broadside  toward  that  graveyard^  would 
have  been  heard  from  a  hundred  times ;  the  residents  of  Park 
street  would  have  been  here.  He  had  lived  near  the  Athenaeum 
many  years,  and  never  heard  a  word  against  the  burial-ground  as 
being  mischievous.  It  does  not  average  three  burials  a  year.  In 
the  early  histor}'  of  the  town  these  tombs  were  laid  out,  and  by 
actual  grant  the  owners  had  given  them  an  easement,  and  the 
right  to  bury  in  that  }\ard.  The  ground  is  used  for  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  granted.  The  tombs  are  worth  from  fifty  to  two  hundred 
dollars  each,  and  the  cit}T  will  hear  from  it  if  the  closing  is  finally 
decreed.  Eveiy  man  has  an  attachment  for  the  burial-place  of  his 
kindred.  He  desired  to  be  buried  where  his  kindred  were  laid. 
The  new  blood  that  comes  down  to  Boston  from  New  Hampshire 
and  Vermont  brings  many  people  who  do  not  appreciate  this 
feeling.  Here  are  a  few  tombs  opened  twice  a  }rear  to  receive  the 
remains  of  those  on  that  long  list  who  ask  to  be  buried  there. 
Ten  to  fifteen  years,  at  the  farthest,  will  close  the  list.  What  he 
said  is  not  a  mere  sentiment,  but  a  regard  for  that  feeling  which 
is  imbedded  in  every  man's  heart,  that  the  burial-place   of  his 


34  City  Document  No.  96 

ancestiy  shall  be  respected.  He  asked  the  New  Hampshire  and 
Maine  men  to  decide  upon  this  thing  just  as  the}*  would  upon  the 
breaking  up  of  their  own  burial-places.  He  did  not  believe  they 
are  prejudicial  to  public  health.  If  so,  why  has  it  not  been  heard 
from  before?  If  the}*  are  a  nuisance  the  Board  of  Health  is  bound 
to  come  forward  and  show  it  before  the  hearing  was  opened.  The 
fact  that  in  this  dense  population  no  complaint  has  been  heard  for 
the  Inst  twenty  years  calls  for  some  justification  more  than  has 
been  hinted  at.  St.  Paul's  Church  is  opened  a  hundred  times  to 
the  Granary  ground  once  ;  and  yet  nobody  has  ever  suggested  that 
that  was  an  unhealthy  use  of  the  ground.  Tomb  No.  60  has  been 
opened  thirteen  times  in  sixty -four  years,  and  may  be  opened  three 
or  four  times  more.  Unless  tlve  committee  see  reasons  other  than 
those  named  they  should  allow  it  to  be  used  a  few  years  longer. 

Mr.  AVhitmore  called  attention  to  the  legislation  expressly  pro- 
hibiting burials  under  St.  Paul's  Church  ;  and  more  than  that  all  the 
remains  are  to  be  removed,  which  is  more  than  has  been  suggested 
in  regard  to  the  Granary  Burial-ground.  He  desired  to  know  of 
Mr.  Phillips,  whether  the  large  number  of  occupants  who  paid 
nothing  for  the  tombs  had  any  claim  for  damages  in  case  they  are 
closed.  He  asked  this,  because  he  knew  that  a  great  many  of  the 
tombs  are  not  in  the  possession  of  the  descendants  of  the  persons 
who  received  the  grants,  and  that  no  regard  was  paid  to  the 
feelings  of  the  original  owners.  At  the  time  of  the  Revolution  a 
number  of  the  loyalist  families  owning  the  tombs  in  various  city 
grounds  were  exactly  in  the  position  of  Mr.  Phillips  at  present ; 
the  tombs  were  not  only  confiscated,  but  the  contents  were  thrown 
out,  and  other  persons  received  the  tomb  as  a  free  gift.  Governor 
Hutchinson's  tomb  was  despoiled,  and  was  occupied  by  others,  —  a 
well-known  historical  fact.  There  are  others  who  desire  to  be 
buried  in  the  cit}'  with  their  relatives,  and  why  is  there  any  par- 
ticular reason  why  the  owners  of  tombs  are  to  have  their  feelings 
in  that  respect,  if  contrary  to  the  public  interests,  any  more  con- 
sidered than  those  who  are  buried  in  graves?  Yet  in  1796  the 
town  forbade  further  interments  in  the  graves,  and  none  have  taken 
place  in  the  city  since.  It  is  a  great  hardship  to  prevent  a  person 
from  depositing  his  remains  with  those  of  his  relatives  ;  but  it  is 
no  greater  to  those  who  own  tombs  than  to  those  who  expect  to  be 
buried  in  graves.  Since  the  laying  out  of  Mt.  Auburn  many  per- 
sons preferred  having  the  remains  of  their  friends  transferred  from 
the  city  yards  to  the  new  tombs  and  graves  in  Mt.  Auburn.  But 
the  question  he  desired  Mr.  Phillips  to  explain  is  in  regard  to  the 
pecuniary  interest  of  those  who  claim  rights  in  the  tombs. 

Mr.  Phillips.  It  is  a  mere  bagatelle.  I  shall  not  claim  any 
damages.  But  can  anything  be  clearer  that  a  man  who  has  a 
right  of  burial  in  a  certain  spot  has  a  pecuniary  interest?  Mr. 
Whitmore  has  been  in  Judge  Paine's  office  long  enough  to  know 
that  a  man  who  squats  on  a  place  has  a  title  to  his  position.  The 
town  having  given  them  the  right,  for  which  they  paid,  how 
is  it  possible  to  say  it  is  not  property,  for  which  the  constitution 
gives  an  indemnity  ?  He  did  not  understand  the  Hutchinson  case, 
as  presented  by  Mr.  Whitmore,  to  be  correct.     The  Board  of 


Appendix.  35 

Health  cannot  sa}'  that  opening  the  ground  four  times  a  year  can 
injure  the  public  health,  and  it  is  absurd  nonsense  to  talk  about  it. 
Think  of  the  cesspools  and  open  vaults  which  have  had  no  pro- 
tection for  years  ;  and  here  they  come  squalling  about  three  inter- 
ments a  year 

Frank  W.  Bigelow,  representing  tomb  No.  70,  objected  to 
the  closing  of  the  tomb.  Hon.  Thomas  Hubbard  was  the  original 
owner,  and  it  was  inherited  from  him.  There  have  been  no  inter- 
ments since  1874;  it  is  in  thorough  repair,  and  not  a  nuisance. 
He  had  it  repaired  himself,  and  stopped  up  with  suitable  flag-stones  ; 
it  is  covered  up  to  a  depth  of  three  feet.  He  did  not  think  his  fam- 
ily would  use  it,  but  they  are  certainly  not  willing  that  the  rights 
granted  by  the  town  of  Boston  should  be  taken  away. 

Mrs.  Caroline  M.  Shute,  representing  tomb  No.  39,  the  Capt. 
Thomas  Adams  tomb,  objected  to  its  being  closed.  It  descended 
to  her  from  her  father,  who  inherited  it  from  his  grandfather, 
Thomas  Adams.  She  has  a  father,  mother,  brothers,  and  sisters, 
and  four  children  buried  there.  She  has  three  more  children,  and 
hopes  herself  to  be  buried  there.  From  child  hood,  she  has  been 
taught  that  that  is  her  future  home,  and  would  feel  very  bad  indeed 
to  know  that  she  is  to  be  deprived  of  being  laid  there  to  rest 
with  her  relatives.  Twenty  }-ears  ago  it  was  opened  for  her 
father,  and  on  the  20th  of  last  February  for  her  child,  —  the 
onlv  interments  in  twenty  years.  There  are  only  four  more  to 
go  into  that  tomb.  She  had  a  letter  from  Col.  Staples,  who  has  a 
right  in  the  tomb,  and  decidedly  objects  to  its  being  closed.  She 
had  no  other  home  to  go  to  when  she  dies.  It  may  be  years,  and 
it  may  be  a  very  little  while  ;  but  she  hoped  to  go  where  her  father, 
mother,  and  children  are  laid.  It  has  always  been  kept  in  repair; 
there  is  nothing  about  it  which  can  be  considered  a  nuisance. 
Nobod}-  can  bear  the  idea  of  being  separated  from  relatives  ;  we 
all  want  to  go  to  one  place ;  those  who  have  nice  places  outside 
can  go  there.  She  had  no  home  to  go  to  except  this.  She  hoped 
the  committee  would  think  how  hard  it  will  be  to  be  separated 
from  a  father  and  mother  in  that  home.  Her  father  taught  her, 
from  a  little  bit  of  a  girl,  that  she  was  to  go  there  when  she  died. 
The  idea  that  it  is  going  to  be  closed  up,  and  that  right  taken 
away  from  her,  had  grown  upon  her  so  that  she  could  hardljr  sleep. 
She  wanted  to  be  put  there,  and  have  the  rest  of  her  children  put 
there. 

L.  H.  Bean,  representing  tomb  No.  3,  objected.  It  is  one  of 
the  original  tombs  granted,  by  the  town  of  Boston,  to  his  ances- 
tors and  others,  provided  they  built  the  tombs  satisfactory  to  the 
town  and  maintained  them  for  purposes  of  burial,  and  so  long  as 
they  maintained  them  in  good  order  the}T  were  to  have  the  use  of 
them.  It  descended  to  him  from  the  original  owner,  in  1721.  He 
had  had  the  custod}'  of  the  tomb  for  fort3'-five  years,  —  had  kept 
it  in  repair.  It  had  been  cleaned  and  whitewashed,  and  there  is 
nothing  about  it  detrimental  to  the  public  health.  It  is  many 
years  since  it  was  last  opened.  But  three  persons  will  probably 
request  to  be  interred  there,  and  it  ma}T  be  that  circumstances  will 
be  such    that    they  will  not.     His  immediate  family  have  been 


36  City  Document  No.  96. 

removed  to  Forest  Hills,  but  this  is  kept  as  the  family  tomb  ;  he 
protested  against  his  rights  being  taken  away.  The  tomb  is 
directl}T  in  the  rear  of  the  house  formerly  occupied  b}-  Hon.  Abbott 
Lawrence.  A  large  window  opens  directly  upon  the  grounds. 
He  had  never  heard  an}-  complaint  from  the  famity,  or  from  the 
Union  Club,  as  to  its  being  a  nuisance.  When  the  hearing  took 
place,  some  years  ago,  on  the  intention  of  the  city  to  close  the 
tombs,  Dr.  Warren,  residing  on  Park  street,  Dr.  Gardner,  and  all 
the  gentlemen  on  that  street,  joined  in  testifying  that  the}-  never 
considered  it  a  nuisance.  They  did  complain  that  one  or  two  of 
the  tombs  had  gone  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  and  were 
opened  oftener  than  the}'  ought  to  be.  Where  they  are  used  for 
family  purposes  he  could  not  see  any  objection.  The  last  inter- 
ment there  was  ten  3'ears  ago,  and  the  one  previous  to  that  was 
six  years  before.  All  his  ancestors,  from  the  time  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, with  the<  exception  of  his  own  family,  are  buried  there.  He 
protested  against  any  infringement  of  his  right  to  use  it  for  family 
purposes.  He  did  not  intend  to  be  buried  there  himself,  nor  to 
have   his  children  buried  there. 

Mr.  Bean  also  spoke  in  regard  to  the  Thomas  W.  Sumner  tomb, 
No.  99.  The  only  three  persons  who  will  ever  be  placed  in  it  are 
very  aged, —  one  over  ninety-five,  and  another  about  seventy-eight ; 
they  reside  in  New  Bedford.  The  tomb  was  opened  a  number  of 
years  ago  to  bury  an  arm}-  officer  ;  the  last  interment  was  three 
years  ago,  when  it  was  covered  with  flag-stones  and  sealed  with 
cement.  It  is  nearly  opposite  the  Tremont  House,  well  up  in  the 
yard,  and  it  would  be  impossible  for  any  effluvia  to  escape  from  it ; 
besides,  it  would  be  veiy  difficult  to  get  it  open. 

Robert  Treat  Paine,  Sr.,  representing  tomb  No.  88,  objected 
to  its  being  closed.  He  is  the  grandson  of  the  man  to  whom  it  was 
granted,  —  to  him  and  his  heirs  forever.  He  inherited  it  from 
his  grandfather  who  died  in  1814.  He  was  at  his  house  on  the  pre- 
vious thanksgiving  day  ;  all  the  family  were  there,  and  of  all  those 
present  none  are  now  living  but  himself,  and  he  had  been  hoping 
to  be  buried  there  with  them.  Mr.  Paine  also  represented  No. 
148,  belonging  to  the  father  of  his  wife,  who  opposes  any  change. 
The  stone  is  covered  four  feet  deep,  and  he  could  not  believe  there, 
are  an)'  injurious  exhalations  from  it. 

Albert  Parker  Simpson  objected  to  the  closing  of  No.  1 1 7,  en- 
dorsing what  had  been  said.  It  had  belonged  in  the  family  ever 
since  the  original  grant,  and  had  always  been  intended  to  be  used 
b}'  those  now  living.  It  is  in  the  rear  of  the  yard,  about  in  the 
middle.  One  interment  was  made  the  first  part  of  this  year.  Per- 
haps there  are  three  or  four  more  to  be  buried  there.  In  the  last 
fifteen  years  there  have  been  but  five  burials.  He  and  all  the  par- 
ties likely  to  be  buried  there  are  residents  of  Boston.  Should 
think  there  were  perhaps  a  dozen  or  fifteen  bodies  in  the  tomb. 

Ebenezer  Gay  appeared  for  tomb  No.  124,  built  in  1772  b)'  his 
grandfather.  The  last  burial  was  two  or  three  years  ago.  Buri- 
als  have  occurred  there  in  the  last  sixty  }'ears,  and  some  bodies 
have  been  recently  removed  to  Forest  Hills.  His  grandfather  was 
buried  in  1809.     He  endorsed  what  Mr.  Phillips  and  Mr.  English 


Appendix.  37 

had  said  as  general  considerations.  He  had  no  other  burying-place 
for  himself  and  family.  If  the  scope  of  this  inquiry  is  limited  to 
the  sanitary  use  of  the  grounds,  he  hoped  the  committee  would 
give  time  for  the  remonstrants  to  present  reasons  and  opinions  of 
judges  and  experts.  He  thought  it  could  be  shown  that  as  a  sani- 
tary measure  the  tombs  need  not  be  closed. 

Mrs.  Emily  A.  Bell,  representing  tomb  No.  164,  said  it  is  in 
good  condition  and  has  always  been  attended  to.  It  is  in  the 
arena  back  of  the  monument.  It  was  opened  about  two  years  ago, 
and  there  are  about  half  a  dozen  more  who  claim  a  privilege  there. 
There  are  only  a  few  bodies  there  belonging  to  her  family.  There 
are  six  more  to  use  it. 

John- B.  Osborn,  representing  tomb  No.  91,  said  he  adopted 
the  sentiments  of  the  gentlemen  who  had  spoken,  and  protested 
against  closing  the  tomb. 

Henry  F.  Jenks,  representing  tomb  No.  177,  said  it  was  put 
down  in  the  name  of  Fitch  &  Freeman  ;  but  he  thought  the  Free- 
mans  had  sold  their  part  to  his  grandfather.  Probably  only  one 
person  more  in  the  family  will  be  buried  there.  There  has  been 
no  burial  for  fourteen  or  fifteen  years.  He  objected  to  the  tomb 
being  closed.  He  would  be  likely  to  remove  the  bodies  if  the  tomb 
was  closed.  If  any  tombs  are  left  open  he  wanted  the  same  privi- 
lege. 

Andrew  Geer  appeared  for  tomb  No.  72,  in  the  name  of  John 
Endicott.  His  family  had  had  a  right  of  burial  there  as  far  back  as 
1830  down  to  within  twelve  years.  His  sister  and  himself  are  the 
only  two  remaining  of  the  family.  It  has  not  been  opened  for 
twelve  years  ;  it  cannot  be  much  of  a  nuisance,  and  he  protested 
against  having  it  closed.  His  father,  mother,  brothers,  and  sisters 
are  buried  there,  and  perhaps  he  might  want  to  go  in  there  some 
da}'  himself.  The  last  interment  was  made  twelve  years  ago.  In 
I860  his  mother  was  buried  there  ;  in  1856  or  '57  his  sister,  and  in 
1840  his  father.  He  didn't  think  it  had  been  opened  for  any  other 
parties  except  his  family  for  forty  years. 

Miss  Mary  C.  Oliver,  for  tomb  No.  26,  objected  to  its  being 
closed.  Her  parents  and  brother  are  buried  there,  and  she  wanted 
the  same  right  if  she  chose  to  exercise  it. 

The  committee  received  a  request  from  Messrs.  Phillips,  English, 
and  others  representing  various  tombs,  for  a  further  hearing,  that 
they  ma}'  offer  evidence  on  the  general  question. 

Adjourned  to  Thursday,  July  31,  at  two  o'clock,  P.M. 


THE  SECOND  HEARING. 

Thursday,  July  31,"  1879. 

The  committee  met  at  two,  P.M. 

Present.  —  Alderman  Tucker,  Chairman  ;  Councilmen  Perkins, 
Wyman,  and  Barry. 

James  H.  Munroe,  representing  tomb  No.  113,  said  there  had 
been  only  two  interments  in  it  for  the  last  fifteen  years.     Tha 


38  City  Document  No.  96. 

name  Hayden  is  down  for  this  number ;  but  he  did  not  know  what 
interest  that  man  has.  The  interment  previous  to  the  one  men- 
tioned was  seven  years  before,  and  the  previous  one  was  twenty 
years  earlier.  He  examined  the  tomb  thoroughly  in  1871  ;  it 
was  as  perfect  as  when  built  in  1810.  There  is  nothing  detri- 
mental to  health  in  it.  He  strongly  opposed  its  being  closed,  and 
endorsed  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Phillips  and  the  other  remon- 
strants at  the  last  meeting.  He  objected  on  the  ground  that  these 
tombs  and  monuments  should  be  preserved.  If  another  satisfac- 
tory place  was  given  him  he  might  not  object  individually,  but 
could  not  speak  for  the  other  owners  who  have  other  places  of 
interment. 

Thomas  C.  Amory  objected  to  closing  tomb  No.  78.  He  had 
ancestors  buried  in  it,  where  they  have  rested  quietly  for  a  hun- 
dred years,  and  he  hoped  would  be  permitted  to  rest  many  hun- 
dred years  longer.  Though  we  have  the  glorious  Common  and 
this  buiying-ground,  we  have  not  too  many  places  for  breathing 
and  elbow-room  in  the  heart  of  the  city.  We  have  half  a  million 
people,  more  or  less  ;  are  bound  to  have  a  million  and  a  half  in  the 
future,  and  it  is  very  desirable  to  keep  as  much  open  land  in  the 
centre  of  the  city  as  possible.  On  that  ground,  if  no  other,  he 
trusted  there  will  be  no  disposition  to  disturb  the  tombs.  One  of 
the  tombs  he  was  interested  in,  where  his  ancestor  lies,  was 
given  by  the  city  for  public  services  during  the  Revolution,  after  he 
came  to  take  up  his  abode  in  Boston.  From  fifty  to  sixty  of  his 
ancestors  are  buried  there,  and  within  ten  years  the  speaker  had 
followed  a  hearse  to  that  tomb  with  one  of  his  relatives  to  be 
buried.  As  a  general  rule  the  tombs  are  ver}'  rarely  used  except 
for  guarding  the  ashes  of  the  dead,  and  in  that  burying-ground  are 
deposited  the  remains  of  a  very  large  number  of  the  historical  per- 
sonages in  whom  we  take  most  pride,  whose  memories  we  are 
bound  to  cherish,'  and  on  whose  tombstones  should  have  been  in- 
scribed what  Shakespeare  put  upon  his  own,  "  Accursed  be  he  who 
removes  these  bones."  It  would  be  a  most  sacrilegious  act  and  en- 
tail endless  disgrace  upon  Boston  if  they  and  their  descendants 
should  be  removed  for  the  sake  of  any  private,  immediate,  or  fu- 
ture profit,  or  from  a  disposition  to  violate  the  tombs.  The  whole 
community-  shuddered  when  it  was  proposed  to  place  a  court-house 
there,  and  it  was  contrary  to  the  wishes  and  taste  of  the  public  to 
put  it  to  any  such  purpose.  He  had  a  burial-place  at  St.  Paul's, 
and  trusted  there  would  be  some  hesitation  about  carrying  out  the 
disposition  to  close  up  the  tombs  there.  If  a  time  should  ever 
come  when  a  public  opinion  would  be  generated  so  as  not  only  to 
close  up  these  tombs,  but  appropriate  them  under  the  right  of  emi- 
nent domain  for  any  sanitary  purpose,  or  public  use,  when  the 
time  came  for  making  compensation,  the  present  actual  use  would 
be  an  important  element  in  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  the  city  for 
what  was  taken.  It  will  be  an  injury  in  advance  and  an  indirect 
violation  of  the  constitutional  safeguard,  that  no  man's  property 
should  be  taken  without  compensation,  by  lessening  the  value  of 
the  present  use  of  the  tomb.  If  you  take  away  the  present  use 
you  ought  to  pay  for  the  privilege.     If  you  close  it  up  by  the  right 


Appendix.  39 

of  eminent  domain,  when  the  whole  privilege  is  taken,  and  the 
Granary  Burial-ground  applied  for  some  other  purpose,  then  the 
whole  expense  of  placing  it  in  some  position,  —  into  a  place 
equally  agreeable, —  the  city  would  omit  the  element  of  present 
use  in  computing  the  value.  He  objected  to  separating  the  present 
use  from  the  property  in  the  tomfc  itself.  It  would  be  difficult  for 
the  city  to  settle  upon  the  amount  of  damages.  Finding  a  resting- 
place  somewhere  else  would  be  perhaps  a  very  serious  matter. 
Many  people  of  verj'  limited  means  have  struggled  along  until 
they  are  threescore  3-ears  and  ten,  who  are  looking  forward  with 
great  satisfaction  to  their  final  rest  in  those  tombs  with  those  they 
love.  If  this  is  taken  away  the  families  are  so  scattered  there 
would  be  much  trouble  to  find  another  place  of  interment.  Burial- 
grounds  have  been  in  existence  in  London  and  Rome  some  two 
thousand  years,  and  there  has  always  been  a  disposition  every- 
where to  respect  the  sanctities  of  the  tomb. 

Mr.  George  W.  Phillips  obtained  permission  to  introduce  a 
few  witnesses  upon  the  general  question  of  the  effect  of  the  tombs 
upon  public  health. 

H.  C.  Brooks,  residing  at  the  Tremont  House  for  sixteen  to  eigh- 
teen years,  occupying  a  room  on  the  south  side  next  the  buiying- 
ground,  had  never  heard  any  complaint  of  injurious  effect  from  burials 
on  that  ground,  and  had  never  perceived  any  bad  effect  himself. 

Mr.  Phillips  read  a  letter  from  Hon.  Alpheus  Hardy,  trustee 
of  and  boarder  at  the  Tremont  House,  and  familiar  with  it  for 
twenty-five  years,  stating  that  he  never  had  had  a  complaint  of  the 
burial-ground  or  heard  of  one  from  any  source.  If  there  had  been 
cause  for  complaint  he  should  have  known  of  it. 

Lewis  P.  Jones,  undertaker,  and  sexton  of  St.  Paul's  Church, 
had  never  heard  any  complaint  from  burials  in  the  cit}r  grounds 
during  thirtj*-five  years.  Dr.  Warren,  who  lived  on  Park  street, 
told  him  he  considered  the  light  and  air  from  the  burial-ground 
one  of  the  greatest  things  he  could  have  for  the  estate.  Most  of 
the  tombs  used  for  the  last  thirty  years  are  covered  by  stones,  the 
planks  having  been  taken  away.  He  lived  thirty -five  years  in  the 
rear  of  St.  Paul's  Church  ;  never  saw  a  sick  da}-  since  he  has  been 
in  Boston.  His  wife  had  not  been  well  for  some  years  ;  but  her 
famil}r,  who  never  lived  there,  were  much  the  same  as  she  was. 
He  was  in  the  St.  Paul's  Church  tombs  about  a  third  of  the  time 
for  thirty  years,  and  never  experienced  any  bad  effect  from  efflu- 
via. Mr.  Jones  told  one  or  two  anecdotes  to  show  the  supersti- 
tious fear  people  have  of  dead  bodies.  The  Granary  Burying- 
ground  is  in  good  condition ;  once  in  a  while  a  place  is  found 
where  the  boards  are  rotten,  and  in  many  cases  the  boards  are  re- 
placed with  stones.  He  was  in  the  ground  }resterday,  and  saw  no 
tombs  except  what  were  in  perfect  condition.  He  had  two  children, 
and  they  had  alwa}Ts  been  in  good  health. 

Richard  Sullivan,  owner  of  one-half  of  tomb  146,  had  a  great 
many  friends  buried  there,  and  objected  to  the  right  of  burial  being 
taken  away.  It  was  last  opened  about  ten  years  ago  ;  was  in  good 
condition  then  :  had  heard  no  complaint.  He  would  prefer  a  burial- 
place  there  to  one  at  Mt.  Auburn. 


40  City  Document  No.  9G. 

Henry  G.  Denny,  representing  one-half  of  tomb  No.  111,  bnilt 
by  Obadiah  Wright,  appeared  for  the  present  owner,  Miss  Caroline 
Wright,  who  objected  to  the  tomb  being  closed.  The  last  inter- 
ment was  in  1844.  Miss  Wright  would  consider  it  a  case  of 
peculiar  hardship  if  prevented  from  having  her  remains  deposited 
in  the  tomb  which  her  father  provided  two-thirds  of  a  century  ago, 
and  which  she  has  looked  forward  to  occupying  for  the  last  thirty 
years.  Apart  from  the  considerations  of  sentiment  and  associa- 
tion in  her  case  it  will  be  a  peculiar  hardship  to  be  deprived  of  the 
right  of  burial  there.  She  has  no  means  of  providing  a  burial- 
place  for  herself  and  the  other  members  of  the  family,  and  she  has 
looked  to  this  as  her  last  resting-place  for  a  long  time  ;  she  is 
decidedly  opposed  to  being  deprived  of  her  rights  in  the  tomb. 
About  a  dozen  years  ago,  Mr.  Denny  lived  for  a  year  on  Park 
street,  and  was  a  frequent  visitor  at  the  same  house  for  about 
ten  years  ;  he  occupied  a  room  opening  upon  the  burial-ground  ; 
never  heard  anything  objectionable  or  any  complaint  from  that 
house  or  the  neighboring  house  in  regard  to  the  ground,  which  was 
regarded  as  an  advantage  to  the  estates,  as  being  ornamental,  and 
giving  additional  value  to  them  on  account  of  the  rear  outlook. 
He  never  found  anything  objectionable. 

Elliot  Pette  represented  the  Faneuil  tomb,  No.  138.  When  it 
was  proposed  to  close  the  tomb,  in  1854,  his  family  secured  a  lot  at 
Mt.  Auburn,  and  one  member  was  buried  there.  When  the  restric- 
tion was  removed  the  remains  of  his  relatives  were  brought  into 
Boston,  and  they  sold  their  lot  in  Mt.  Auburn.  His  family  and  the 
Jones  family  decidedly  object  to  closing  the  tomb.  The  last  inter- 
ment was  in  1875.  The  tomb  is  in  good  condition.  It  is  the 
tomb  of  Peter  Faneuil,  has  his  coat  of  arms  upon  it,  and,  apart 
from  personal  objections,  it  is  historical  ground  and  should  not  be 
destroyed.  I£  the  city  should  agree  to  provide  a  suitable  place  he 
would  still  object  to  this  tomb  being  closed.  He  thought  there 
were  four  of  each  family  likely  to  be  buried  there. 

James  L.  Wilson,  a  part  owner  of  tomb  No.  174,  known  as  the 
Gray  and  Wilson  tomb,  said  it  came  into  the  hands  of  Robert  Gray 
fifty  years  ago,  and  into  the  hands  of  Mrs.  Wilson,  his  wife,  who  is 
present.  Her  great-grandfather,  all  her  ancestors,  and  her  children, 
are  buried  there.  She  is  naturally  very  sensitive  against  this 
movement  to  deprive  her  of  her  rights.  The  last  burial  was  that 
of  her  father  about  fourteen  years  ago.  Her  father  had  cared  for 
it  forty  years  before  his  decease  at  eightj'-one  years  of  age,  since 
which  time  the  speaker  had  had  the  care  of  it.  It  is  in  good  re- 
pair and  always  has  been.  He  had  lived  within  a  short  distance 
of  it  in  Montgomery  place,  and  never  heard  any  complaints 
against  it.  He  never  heard  of  anybody  dying  at  the  Tremont 
House  except  from  extreme  old  age.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
other  places  in  the  vicinity.  It  is  one  of  the  healthiest  neighbor- 
hoods in  the  city. 

W.  R.  Gray,  representing  tomb  No.  162,  asked  if  there  would 
be  an}T  objection  to  allowing  the  bodies  to  be  removed  if  the  tombs 
are  closed  ;  to  which  the  chairman  replied  that  he  was  under  the 
impression  there  never  had  been  any  objections  to  removing  the 


Appendix.  41 

remains  from  an}'  of  the  tombs.  If  the  tombs  are  merely  to  be 
closed  and  the  grounds  remain  open,  with  rights  of  the  owners 
protected,  Mr.  Gray  said  he  should  not  object ;  otherwise  he  would. 

Charles  Hubbart  objected  to  closing  tomb  No.  158,  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  no  where  else  to  bury  the  dead.  The  tomb  is 
in  good  condition.  It  was  last  opened  about  thirty -two  years  ago. 
He  was  in  the  tomb  some  time  last  spring.  There  was  something 
said  about  taking  the  burial-ground  for  public  purposes,  and  he 
thought  he  would  not  do  any  more  repairs  until  he  found  out  what 
was  going  to  be  the  result.  If  the  majority  of  the  owners  decided 
to  give  the  city  that  piece  of  ground  for  speculation,  he  would  de- 
cide with  them.  Most  of  the  heirs  of  this  tomb,  about  twenty  in 
his  family,  who  will  take  care  of  it,  are  all  young  people.  He  did 
not  propose  to  give  the  City  of  Boston  an  inch  of  ground.  The 
city  cannot  make  a  nuisance  of  it.  The  whole  thing  could  be 
taken  care  of  for  a  little  money  if  the  owners  were  a  mind  to  put 
their  heads  together.  He  had  never  lost  any  of  his  family  and 
hoped  he  never  should.  At  the  same  time  the  right  in  the  tomb 
comes  hand}-,  and  will  save  a  few  dollars,  for  it  costs  a  good  deal 
to  bury  a  body  nowadays.  It  is  considerable  honor  to  own  a 
burial-place  in  the  Granary  burial-ground.  It  is  an  historical  place, 
and  ought  to  be  fenced  up  more  than  it  is  now.  If  it  had  a  higher 
fence  it  would  keep  the  corporations  and  peanut-stands  away  from 
it.  '  He  went  all  over  the  ground  last  spring  and  found  only  one 
place  where  the  rats  were  getting  in  at  the  top  of  the  tomb. 

Frank  W.  Bigelow  said  that  within  thirty  years  there  had  been 
nearly  a  hundred  dollars  spent  on  the  two  tombs  he  represented, 
he  having  expended  sixty  odd  dollars  on  the  one  in  the  Chapel- 
ground.  He  objected  to  closing  the  tomb  even  if  another  place 
was  provided. 

Mr.  Phillips  addressed  the  committee  on  the  general  question 
of  the  expediency  of  closing  the  tombs.  He  quoted  the  statute 
authorizing  the  proceedings,  and  admitted  that  if  the  tombs  can 
be  shown  to  be  a  nuisance,  no  matter  whose  ancestors  are  buried 
there,  they  should  be  closed.  The  Board  of  Health  have  simply 
reported  that  the  public  health  requires  that  future  interments  in 
each  and  all  the  tombs  of  the  Granary  Burying-ground  should  be 
prohibited.  They  presented  this  without  a  single  reason  except 
their  own  statement.  What  right  have  they  to  say  that  all  the 
tombs,  from  1  to  204,  need  to  have  this  prohibition  put  upon  them? 
How  can  the  committee  say  that  tomb  No.  1  comes  within  that 
category  ?  It  contains  a  box  and  some  dry  skeletons.  Are  they 
going  to  accept  the  sweeping  charge,  when  the  evidence  is  plain 
that  it  may  as  well  never  have  been  occupied?  In  his  own  case 
the  tomb  has  not  been  opened  for  sixteen  years,  and  in  sixty  years 
but  about  twelve  times.  It  is  covered  with  flagging,  and  about 
three  feet  of  loam.  Nothing  is  more  impervious  to  noxious 
gases  than  loam,  and  yet  the  Board  of  Health  say  it  is  noxious. 
Mr.  Phillips  quoted  from  the  reports  of  the  Board  of  Health  from 
1875  to  1878,  to  show  that,  with  the  exception  of  once,  they  have 
never  used  the  word  "  sanitary"  in  regard  to  closing  these  tombs, 
having  all  the  while  urged  it  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  expensive, 


42  City  Document  No.  96. 

having  put  it  in  black  and  white  that  the  land  is  worth  over  a 
million  dollars,  and  could  be  used  as  a  court-house.  It  would 
seem  that  when  they  found  they  could  not  get  rid  of  it  in  that 
way,  they  make  this  charge.  Upon  the  case  presented,  there  is  no 
evidence  by  which  the  committee  can  report  to  the  government 
that  the  tombs  are  unfit  for  future  interment.  Mr.  Phillips  stated 
that  he  appeared  also  for  tomb  No.  60,  No.  157,  No.  96,  and  No. 
107^.  The  statute  requires  the  committee  to  report  that  the 
specific  numbers  referred  to  are  nuisances,  and  he  claimed  there 
was  nothing  in  the  evidence  authorizing  them  to  make  such  a 
report. 

George  Allen,  owner  of  tomb  No.  12,  said  it  had  not  been 
opened  for  twenty  years,  no  more  interments  are  intended  to  be 
made  there,  and  while  it  is  not  his  intention  to  open  it  again,  he 
did  not  wish  to  dispose  of  it.  He  had  no  objection  to  having  it 
permanently  sealed. 

Wilson  J.  Welch,  representing  tomb  No.  144,  remonstrated 
against  its  being  closed  unless  it  is  proved  to  be  unhealthy  to  the 
cit}r ;  or  if  the  cit}'  will  provide  such  a  place  as  they  would  choose, 
the  owners  would  not  object.  He  would  prefer  that  the  city  would 
give  them  the  mone}'  for  the  value  of  the  tomb,  and  let  them  go 
to  Forest  Hills  or  somewhere  else,  and  provide  a  place  for  them- 
selves. The  tomb  was  in  perfect  order  in  1839,  and  has  never 
been  opened  since. 

The  chairman  filed  the  following  letter  with  the  papers  in  the 
case :  — 

Machias,  Washington  County,  Maine, 

July  28,  1879. 

Messrs.  Tucker,  Barry,  and  Perkins,  Joint  Special  Committee  of  the  City 
Council  on  the  Granary  Burying- ground  :  — 

Gents,  — I  see  by  the  proceeding  before  you  on  the  15th,  that  Mrs.  Caroline 
M.  Shute  represented  tomb  No.  39,  owned  by  Capt.  Thomas  Adams.  Her 
father  was  the  son  of  Jacob  Rust,  who  married  Mary  Adams,  daughter  of 
Capt.  Thomas  Adams.  My  father,  Capt.  Edward  Staples,  married  Diana 
Adams,  also  a  daughter  of  Capt.  Thomas  Adams.  The  Rust  family  and  the 
Staples  family  being  the  only  owners  of  the  Capt.  Thomas  Adams  tomb,  No. 
39,  Granary  Burying-ground,  on  Tremont  street,  in  the  City  of  Boston.  Upon 
the  recommendation  of  the  Board  of  Health,  you  propose  to  prohibit  any 
further  interments  in  said  Granary  Burying-ground.  I  protest  against  the 
closing  of  the  tomb  which  I  represent,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  nuisance.  This 
tomb  has  been  opened  only  four  times  in  the  last  seventy  years  (70)  ;  in  1809, 
1819,  1822,  and  1841,  for  my  father,  mother,  and  two  brothers.  I  have  a 
brother  buried  in  Philadelphia,  and  two  sisters  in  Belvidere,  Illinois.  I  am 
the  only  one  of  my  fathers  family  living,  and  I  have  passed  my  seventy-fifth 
year  (75).  I  was  born  in  the  City  of  Boston;  my  father  lived  at  83  Prince 
street,  and  done  business  on  Long  Wharf,  and  I  desire  to  be  buried  in  the 
city  where  I  was  born.  I  have  one  daughter  who  desires  to  be  buried  in  the 
tomb  in  Boston,  and  the  remains  of  my  wife  who  died  since  I  lived  there,  I  in- 
tend to  remove  to  Boston,  tomb  No.  39,  Granary  Burying-ground.  I  had 
three  daughters,  one  married  here,  and  her  husband  and  children  are  buried 
here,  and  she  probably  will  be.  One  of  my  daughters  married  Otis  N.  Jones, 
of  Boston,  son  of  Eliphalet  Jones ;  died,  and  was  buried  at  Mt.  Auburn. 

I  protest  against  the  closing  the  Granary  Burying-ground  against  any  further 
interments.  I  don't  believe  the  Board  of  Health  or  the  authorities  of  the  City 
of  Boston,  or  State  of  Massachusetts,  have  the  right  to  deprive  me  of  my 


Appendix.  43 

property  and  resting-place,  without  making  a  sufficient  compensation  for  the 
same.     I  am  desirous  the  burial-place  of  my  father,  mother,  brothers,  uncles, 
and  aunts,  grandfather  and  grandmother,  should  be  respected. 
I  am  with  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOMAS  ADAMS  STAPLES. 

This  closed  the  public  hearing  upon  the  closing  of  the  tombs  in 
the  Granar}T  Burying-ground. 

The  chairman  called  upon  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Health, 
and  Mr.  Keith  said  the  closing  of  the  tombs  was  no  new  thing, 
having  been  mentioned  in  the  reports  ever}*  year  since  the  Board 
had  been  in  existence,  and  mention  had  also  been  made  of  burial- 
grounds  at  other  places  in  the  heart  of  the  city  proper.  Some 
of  the  tombs  in  this  Granary  Burying-ground  are  in  such  a  di- 
lapidated condition  that  men  emplo}Tecl  to  cut  the  grass  around 
them  have  in  some  instances  fallen  into  them  and  disappeared 
out  of  sight.  In  two  instances  the  men  were  so  frightened  that 
they  refused  to  go  back  there  to  work.  Most  of  the  tombs  have 
been  opened  by  the  frost  and  rain,  and  are  in  such  an  exposed  con- 
dition that  if  a  body  were  deposited  there  the  gases  would  come 
out  without  any  let  or  hindrance.  Eveiy  one  knows  the  difficulty  of 
confining  such  gases.  Ever  since  the  organization  of  the  Board 
of  Health,  whether  under  the  city  or  town  government,  it  has  called 
the  attention  of  the  public  to  the  closing  of  those  burial-grounds 
in  the  heart  of  the  city.  In  1795  the  selectmen  voted  that  no 
graves  or  new  tombs  shall  be  opened  or  built  in  either  the  Common 
or  Chapel  Burying-grounds  after  the  1st  day  of  May  next  then 
ensuing.  No  new  graves  have  been  opened  since  that  time.  The 
City  of  Boston  then  only  ha.d  a  population  of  eighteen  thousand. 
He  inferred  that  the  selectmen  would  have  closed  the  tombs  had 
the}*  the  power  to  do  it.  Sanitarians  agree  that  burials  in  tombs 
are  infinitely  more  unhealthy  than  in  the  ground,  where  the  body  is 
covered  with  earth  which  will  absorb  the  gases.  There  has  not 
been  sufficient  authority  in  the  law  to  prevent  burials  in  the  tombs 
until  the  Legislature  of  1877  amended  the  law  in  a  way  that  it 
could  be  acted  upon,  sa}ring  the  City  Council  should  have  power 
to  do  so  after  the  Board  of  Health  recommend  that  future  inter- 
ments should  cease.  As  to  the  condition  of  the  tombs,  he  knew 
of  one  near  the  Tremont  House  where  the  coffins  are  wedged  in 
edgeways  and  are  sticking  up  upon  the  steps  of  the  tomb.  The 
frost  often  causes  them  to  give  way  before  the  authorities  are 
aware  of  it,  and,  as  was  the  case  at  the  buiying-ground  on  Eustis 
street,  the  first  they  knew  the  dogs  and  cats  were  bringing  out  the 
bones  and  playing  with  them  upon  the  ground.  All  the  tombs  are 
in  such  an  open,  cracked  condition  that  the  gases  will  escape  very 
easily.  The  law  does  not  contemplate  that  the  Board  shall  prove 
the  tombs  are  actually  in  a  state  of  nuisance.  The  law  is  to  pre- 
vent the  arising  of  a  nuisance.  The  Board  recommend  that  future 
interments  shall  cease  because  the  condition  of  the  tombs  is  such 
that  a  nuisance  must  arise.  If  a  rat  or  mouse  dies  within  the  walls 
of  a  house  the  stench  becomes  so  great  you  cannot  live  there. 
The  human  body  is  no  sweeter  than  that  of  a  rat.     It  is  all  flesh. 


44  City  Document  No.  96. 

In  the  process  of  decay  the  human  body  is  no  sweeter  than  that  of 
any  animal  upon  the  earth's  surface.  Just  so  much  more  offen- 
sive will  a  human  body  be  as  it  is  larger,  and  the  gases  will  exhale 
in  the  same  proportion.  The  stench  from  that  burial-ground  has 
been  such  that  members  of  the  Board  of  Health,  whose  office  has 
been  next  to  the  ground,  have  been  sick  ever  since  its  organization. 
Mr.  Whiting,  Mr.  Crowell,  Mr.  Boardman,  the  clerk  of  the  Board, 
and  the  clerk  in  the  rear  office,  were  all  made  sick  by  it.  I  have 
gone  to  the  office  feeling  perfectly  well,  and  in  ten  minutes  my 
head  would  turn  round  so  that  I  would  have  to  go  back  into  the 
open  air.  This  is  caused  by  the  gases  from  that  burial-ground.  Mr. 
J.  P.  Bradlee,  for  several  3-ears  President  of  the  Board  of  Directors 
for  Public  Institutions,  occupied  the  room  we  did,  and  was  made 
sick  in  the  same  way,  and  he  told  the  Board  he  could  not  stand 
it.  The  janitors  sa}T  that  when  the}'  come  in  in  the  morning  the 
stench  is  fearful,  often  so  they  cannot  stand  it,  and  they  have  to 
open  the  doors  and  windows  and  go  out.  The}-  say  there  have 
been  only  a  dozen  burials  in  the  King's  Chapel  burial-ground 
latel}\  So  much  the  worse.  A  few  burials,  and  we  have  had  this 
experience.  The  water  permeates  through  those  tombs,  runs  into 
the  basement  of  the  building  and  fills  the  whole  space  under- 
neath. 

The  statute  does  not  contemplate  waiting  until  a  case  of  pesti- 
lence arises  before  we  can  stop  it.  It  is  a  remedial,  preventive 
process.  You  are  to  anticipate  the  effect  of  these  gases  and  pre- 
vent diseases  from  arising  in  consequence  of  them.  Sickness  and 
disease  have  arisen  repeatedly,  as  we  are  able  to  show,  and  I  could 
take  up  considerable  of  your  time  in  doing  so,  if  I  deemed  it 
essential.  The  contemplation  of  the  statute  is  to  stop  this  thing 
in  the  future.  If  our  selectmen  in  1795  saw  the  evil  from  this 
place  to  the  extent  that  they  said  no  more  interments  should  be 
made  there  if  they  had  the  power  to  control  it,  how  much  more  a 
necessit}7  is  it  when  we  have  a  population  of  three  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand,  and  the  evil  is  growing  worse  every  day.  The  only 
plea  they  make  is  that  our  ancestors  are  buried  there,  and  they 
want  to  be  buried  there  too.  That  is  a  matter  of  sentiment  which 
would  be  taken  out  of  these  people  if  they  would  look  into  the 
tombs  and  see  how  the  remains  of  their  ancestors  appear.  I  do 
not  believe  one-half  of  them  would  allow  themselves  to  be  buried 
there. 

These  people  profess  to  have  much  respect  for  their  ancestors ; 
but  when  we  tried  to  find  some  one  to  repair  a  tomb  we  could  not, 
and  have  had  to  repair  it  at  the  expense  of  the  city  ;  and  subse- 
quently, when  a  man  with  a  right  in  the  tomb  turned  up  and  we 
presented  the  bill,  he  would  say,  I  don't  know  as  I  have  such  an 
interest  in  it  that  I  care  to  pa}T  such  a  bill.  The  community  is  not 
called  upon  to  bear  the  offensive  smell  of  decaying  bodies  simply 
because  the  ancestors  of  these  people  are  buried  there. 

The  Chairman.  —  A  great  many  of  these  people  want  the  city 
to  provide  them  with  a  place  of  burial  somewhere  else.  How  is 
the  statute  on  that  point? 

Mr.  Keith. — Nothing  is  said  about  that,  one  way  or  the  other. 


Appendix.  45 

It  is  undoubtedly  within  the  discretion  of  the  city  to  do  as  it 
pleases.  One»  thing  may  be  said,  the  rights  which  these  people 
have,  never  cost  them  anything,  but  descended  from  their  ances- 
tors. If  the  city  took  possession  of  the  grounds  and  used  them 
for  another  purpose,  then  I  should  think  it  would  be  called  upon 
to  make  suitable  remuneration  for  them.  But  if  it  simply  orders 
the  tombs  closed,  then  I  do  not  see  why  it  should  make  remuner- 
ation. The  statute  simply  contemplates  closing  the  tombs. 
Mr.  Wyman. — Who  has  the  ownership  in  these  lands? 
Mr.  Keith.  —  I  cannot  tell  whether  it  originally  belonged  to 
the  town,  or  not.  My  impression  is  it  belonged  to  the  town,  which 
was  in  the  habit  of  granting  permits  to  use  the  tombs  ;  but  that 
implied  that  the  ownership  of  the  fee  vested  in  the  town. 

Mr.  Wyman.  —  If  these  places  are  closed  up,  will  the  land 
revert  to  an}-  one  else,  as  in  the  case  of  a  street,  wheu  it  is  aban- 
doned by  the  city  the  land  reverts  to  the  original  owners? 

Mr.  Keith. — That  is  where  the  vote  was  originally  to  take  the 
land  for  a  street.  The  difference  between  the  two  cases  is  this  : 
when  land  is  taken  for  a  street,  it  is  used  for  street  purposes,  and 
when  its  use  as  a  street  is  given  up,  it  reverts  to  the  original  pos- 
sessors. But  in  this  case  the  town  originally  owned  the  land,  it 
voted  to  give  not  the  land,  but  an  easement  in  it  for  purposes  of 
burial.  If  the  title  comes  into  anybody's  hands,  I  think  it  will 
be  the  city  of  Boston. 

Mr.  Barry. —  Suppose  the  city  should  stop  burials  there,  it 
would  not  have  the  right  to  use  the  land  for  an}-  other  purpose, 
except  by  getting  an  Act  of  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Keith. — That  is  my  idea  at  present.  The  present  statute 
enables  the  city  to  close  the  tombs  so  that  the}-  shall  not  be  used 
in  the  future. 

Mr.  Wyman. — I  am  informed  that  if  the}-  are  closed,  the  abut- 
ting owners  will  claim  that  the  land  reverts  to  them. 

Mr.  Keith. — That  question  should  be  referred  to  the  City  Solic- 
itor. I  have  no  idea  that  the  claim  is  well-founded.  My  own  idea 
is  that  the  land  originally  belonged  to  the  town. 

Mr.  Barry. — The  Board  of  Health  says  that  all  the  tombs  are 
in  bad  condition.  Suppose  there  are  some  in  good  condition, 
would  the  city  have  a  right  to  close  them? 

Mr.  Keith. — You  will  see  by  the  statute  that  we  have  not  got 
to  show  that  a  tomb  is  in  bad  condition  :  "  The  City  Council  of 
any  city  may,  upon  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Health  thereof  that 
the  public  health  requires  it,  and  after  public  notice  and  hearing 
in  the  manner  hereinafter  provided,  forbid  future  interments  in 
any  tomb  or  tombs  in  the  city."  The  Board  of  Health  report 
that  the  public  health  requires  that  future  interments  in  these 
tombs  should  be  prohibited.  They  do  not  have  to  show  that  a 
particular  tomb  is  in  a  dilapidated  condition. 

Dr.  Durgin. — We  worked  nearly  two  years  under  the  old  law 
with  the  hope  of  notifying  the  proprietors,  and  then  taking  the 
step  which  we  have  now  taken  to  close  those  tombs.  We  found 
it  utterly  impossible  to  do  so.  We  employed  a  man  for  a  year  or 
more  to  look  up  these  very  records,  and  see  if  it  were  possible  to 


46  City  Document  No.  96. 

notify  the  proprietors  according  to  the  old  law,  which  required 
that  at  least  one  owner  in  each  tomb  should  be  served  with  a 
notice. 

The  fact  that  the  Board  of  Health  consider  the  tombs  a  nuisance, 
and  that  public  health  requires  they  shall  be  closed,  is  not  of 
recent  origin. 

In  regard  to  the  stench  in  the  Board  of  Health  office,  of  which 
Mr.  Keith  spoke,  you  can  now  go  down  there  and  see  from  half  a 
dozen  to  forty  of  those  large  blue  flies  collected  in  the  cracks  in 
the  walls  facing  that  burial-ground,  —  a  condition  of  things  }tou 
never  see  except  where  a  stench  exists.  That  is  within  five  feet  of 
where  1113*  desk  used  to  be,  and  that  is  the  condition  of  things  we  are 
obliged  to  have,  when  the  windows  are  open.  The  stench  is  de- 
cidedly bad ;  it  has  affected  my  health  as  it  has  that  of  other  mem- 
bers of  the  board.  Mr.  Phillips  made  a  great  point  about  these 
bodies  being  buried  several  feet  under  the  surface  of  the  ground. 
He  ought  to  know  that  these  tombs  are  the  worst  possible  places 
for  the  escape  of  gases  ;  that  }tou  cannot  confine  them  in  the  tomb. 

In  1843,  during  an  investigation  in  regard  to  prohibiting  the 
further  interment  of  bodies  in  cities  in  Great  Britain,  it  was  found 
that  gases  came  up  from  a  grave  twenty  feet  deep.  Several  ph3Tsi- 
cians  stated  that  five  or  six  feet  of  earth  above  the  bodies  would 
be  sufficient  to  confine  the  gases  ;  but  it  was  afterward  proved  that 
it  was  not  sufficient.  The  idea  that  a  covering  of  a  few  feet  of 
earth  will  confine  these  gases  has  been  proved  to  be  entirely  erro- 
neous. It  is  true  that  a  few  feet  of  earth  may  confine  a  certain 
degree  of  animal  matter  so  that  you  will  not  perceive  it ;  but  it  is 
not  true  that  a  large  amount  of  gas  can  be  confined  under  the  same 
depth  of  earth.  We  maintain  that  the  soil  in  King's  Chapel  and 
Granary  Burying-grounds  is  literally  saturated  with  these  bodies. 
Giving  to  each  tomb  ten  bodies,  —  and  there  are  fort}^  to  fifty  in 
some  of  them,  —  }tou  will  have  nearly  three  thousand  bodies  in 
those  two  little  grounds.  You  can  very  easily  imagine  what  con- 
dition the  earth  is  in.  The  time  has  long  since  arrived  when 
further  interments  there  should  be  prohibited.  This  has  been  the 
sentiment  in  all  large  cities  abroad,  and  decided  measures  have 
been  taken  to  prohibit  further  burials  within  city  limits.  In  re- 
gard to  St.  Paul's  Church,  an  act  has  been  passed  not  only  pro- 
hibiting further  burials  under  it,  but  absolutely  requiring  that  the 
bodies  now  under  the  church  should  be  carried  away.  If  the  city 
is  responsible  for  the  care  of  those  grounds,  something  should  be 
done  to  make  their  condition  safe.  On  pulling  away  the  grass 
alongside  one  of  those  tombs,  I  disclosed  a  hole  some  ten  inches 
in  diameter  showing  that  about  three  feet  of  the  tomb  had 
already  settled ;  it  will  soon  give  in.  We  have  to  hire  people  to 
cut  this  grass  and  make  those  places  reasonably  safe.  A  man  cut- 
ting the  grass  is  in  danger  of  going  through. 

Mr.  Keith.  —  If  the  grounds  are  closed,  and  the  Board  of  Health 
have  authority  to  care  for  them,  they  will  be  kept  in  repair. 

Dr.  Green,  City  Physician.  —  I  feel  very  confident  that  the 
Board  of  Health  cannot  urge  with  too  much  force  the  necessity  of 
closing  these  graveyards.    I  have  as  much  interest  in  each  of  them 


Appendix.  47 

as  almost  any  one.  I  have  ancestors  tying  in  each,  and  I  say,  by 
all  means  shut  them  up.  That  would  be  my  opinion  of  what  most 
persons  would  do  who  have  members  of  their  family  buried  there. 
Naturally  the  persons  who  feel  the  least  interest  in  closing  them 
are  not  those  who  come  here  to  give  their  opinions  to  you.  Those 
who  feel  a  strong  desire  not  to  have  the  tombs  closed  come  here. 

I  cannot  tell  what  will  become  of  the  fee  of  the  land,  but  I  have 
an  opinion,  based  upon  something  I  have  seen,  that  these  two 
graveyards  were  originally  one.  King's  Chapel  Graveyard,  the  old- 
est in  the  city,  was  probably  a  tract  in  the  outskirts  of  the  village, 
and  undoubtedly  interments  were  made  in  a  part  of  it  which  we  now 
call  the  Granary  Burial-ground.  Afterwards,  when  Tremont  street 
was  laid  out,  they  found  a  part  of  the  tract  of  land  that  had  not  been 
used  for  burial,  and  straightened  the  street  and  carried  it  through, 
making  two  separate  burial-grounds.  I  have  no  doubt  that  at  one 
time  in  the  early  history  of  Boston,  the  two  graveyards  were 
spoken  of  as  the  same,  but  the  street  having  been  laid  out,  they 
have  practically  become  two  distinct  grounds. 

Mr.  Perkins.- — Do  you  think  the  public  health  requires  this 
measure  ? 

Dr.  Green.  —  I  do,  most  decidedly.  I  have  often  noticed  what 
Dr.  Durgin  mentioned,  that  in  the  warm  part  of  the  year  you  can 
see  twenty  to  one  hundred  of  these  large  blue  flies  huddled  to- 
gether in  the  cracks  of  the  walls  where  the  Board  of  Health  wras 
located. 

Mr.  Perkins.  —  What  is  your  opinion  about  the  condition  of 
the  grounds? 

Dr.  Green.  —  The}'  are  bad  indeed.  Knowing  the}'  were  bad,  I 
was  surprised  to  find  them  so  bad.  I  did  not  see  a  tomb  I  thought 
in  good  order. 

Mr.  Perkins. —  Then,  in  the  short  time  you  spent  there  this  after- 
noon, you  saw  that  the  tombs  were  in  bad  condition? 

Dr.  Green. — Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Barry. —  If  the  city  closed  the  tombs,  parties  having  rights 
in  them  cannot  bring  a  legal  action  under  the  statute?  Mr. 
Phillips  could  not  sue  the  city? 

Mr.  Keith. —  It  is  one  thing  to  bring  a  suit;  another  thing  to 
maintain  it.  There  is  no  legal  ground  to  maintain  a  suit,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  tombs  being  closed  to  burials  ;  that  being  done 
under  authority  of  the  Legislature.  As  long  as  we  follow  that  act 
there  is  no  ground  of  action  for  closing  the  tomb.  That  is  my 
judgment  as  a  lawyer. 

Mr.  Perkins. —  We  made  a  very  careful  examination  of  the 
tombs,  and  were  obliged  to  mark  fourteen  bad,  twelve  very  bad,  ten 
fair,  and  two  open. 

Adjourned. 


48  City  Document  No.  96. 

KING'S  CHAPEL  BUEYING-GROUND. 


FIRST  HEARING. 

July  22,  1870. 

The  committee  met  at  2  o'clock,  P.M. 

Present. —  Aldermen  Tucker,  chairman,  and  Robinson;  Coun- 
cil men  Perkins,  Bariy,  and  Wyman. 

The  clerk  read  the  call,  and  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Health, 
recommending  that  further  interments  in  the  ground  be  prohibited  ; 
and  the  chair  announced  that  the  committee  were  prepared  to  hear 
remonstrances. 

Mary  E.  Seaver,  representing  tomb  No.  10,  asked  if  the  tombs 
are  closed,  if  the  city  will  furnfsh  a  buiying-spot  elsewhere,  she 
not  being  able  to  provide  another.  Her  family  have  been  buried 
there.  No  other  heirs  claim  the  tomb  except  her  famity.  She  was 
no  relation  to  the  party  named  in  the  list,  James  T.  Austin,  the 
tomb  having  come  to  her  family  from  Zachariah  Jahonnet,  and 
been  in  their  possession  about  fort}'  3Tears,  if  not  longer.  She 
objected  to  the  tomb  being  closed  without  she  could  have  a  burial- 
spot  elsewhere. .  There  are,  perhaps,  ten  or  eleven  members  of  the 
famihT  likel}*  to  be  buried  there.  The  last  burial  was  Charlotte 
Seaver,  an  adult,  who  died  three  years  ago. 

J.  G.  Bell,  representing  tomb  No.  22,  objected  to  its  being 
closed.  No  interments  there  to  make  it  detrimental  to  the  public 
health.  Do  not  think  one  of  the  family  will  be  buried  there,  but 
it  is  the  only  burial-place  they  have  now.  It  was  five  or  six  years 
since  the  tomb  was  opened.  The  tomb  is  in  thorough  repair,  and 
has  always  been  kept  in  good  condition.  He  spoke  only  for  him- 
self, Mr.  Edward  Bell  and  Mr.  Wm.  A.  Bowdlear  being  the  other 
owners.  There  is  some  mistake  about  the  list  representing  a  party 
by  the  name  of  Wells  having  an  interest  in  this  tomb.  On  the  old 
plan  you  will  find  it  marked  as  the  Crafts  and  Bell  tomb.  Do  not 
think  it  is  detrimental  to  public  health,  because  there  are  not  inter- 
ments enough  to  make  it  so.  The  swill-carts  which  go  about  the 
streets  are  more  detrimental.  He  expected  to  be  buried  at  this 
place  or  in  the  Granary.  Visited  this  tomb  not  three  days  ago. 
It  is  near  Tremont  street,  next  to  the  Chapel,  on  the  right-hand 
side,  near  School  street,  two  or  three  tombs  from  the  street. 

Wm.  Hayden,  representing  tomb  No.  5,  in  the  name  of  Wm.  and 
Edwin  Davis,  asked  what  it  was  proposed  to  do,  whether  the  city 
contemplated  removing  the  remains,  or  hermetically  sealing  the 
tombs.  There  is  no  one  connected  with  his  family  who  would  be 
likely  to  be  interred  there,  and  he  did  not  care  to  retain  it  as  a  place 
of  sepulture  for  himself.  He  should  object  to  removing  any  of  the  re- 
mains, and  wished  the  tomb  closed  so  it  shall  never  be  opened 
again.  There  have  been  no  interments  there  for  five  or  six  3'ears. 
His  grandfather,  Edward  Davis,  who  lived  all  his  life  in  State 
street,  and  occupied  for  fifty  years  the  estate  upon  which  the  Tre- 


Appendix.  49 

mont  bank  recently  erected  a  new  building,  owned  the  property, 
made  a  thorough  repair  of  the  tomb,  and  died  in  1811,  ver}'  soon 
after  the  repairs  were  made.  Mr.  Hayden  himself  had  the  inte- 
rior arranged  some  ten  or  a  dozen  years  ago,  and  had  not  heard 
an}'  complaint  from  the  tomb.  The  tomb  is  on  this  side  of  the 
burial-ground,  just  below  the  probate  office.  If  the  remains  are 
left  in  the  tomb  he  should  not  object  to  their  being  closed. 

W.  Dawes  Coolidge,  representing  tomb  No.  19,  inherited  from 
his  grandfather,  Wm.  Dawes,  said  that  when  Mr.  tierce  was 
Mayor  the  speaker  consulted  with  those  interested  in  this  tomb. 
They  left  the  matter  pretty  much  with  him,  and  he  proposed  to 
the  city  some  four  j*ears  ago  that  if  it  would  give  him  a  lot  in  a 
proper  location  he  would  not  object  to  closing  the  tomb.  This  is 
a  natural  question  which  fills  the  heart  of  almost  every  one  having 
an  interest  in  the  tombs.  He  proposed  to  relinquish  his  right  if 
the  city  would  give  him  another  lot  as  it  did  his  mother,  who  had 
one  on  Boylston  street  and  received  one  at  Mt.  Auburn  from  the 
city.  The  mayor  thanked  him  for  the  proposal,  and  said  he  would 
place  it  on  file.  He  would  be  most  happy  to  unite  with  the  city, 
and  supposed  that  the  high-toned  honor  of  Boston  would  not  de- 
prive him  of  his  burial-place  without  providing  him  with  an- 
other. 

The  Chairman.  —  The  committee  are  not  prepared  to  enter  into 
an}-  contract  of  that  kind.  Their  object  is  to  obtain  the  views  and 
feelings  of  the  owners. 

Mr.  Coolidge.  — I  should  gladly  cooperate  with  the  cit}7  in  any 
wish  it  may  have.  There  was  an  interment  there  about  a  year 
and  a  half  ago,  but  it  was  not  in  his  branch  of  the  family.  It  was 
an  old  lady.  The  tomb  had  always  been  in  good  order.  If  any- 
thing wrong  came  to  his  knowledge  about  the  place  where  his 
father  and  mother  lie,  he  would  take  care  of  it.  The  tomb  is  near  the 
south-west  corner  of  City  Hall,  and  would  have  been  covered  by 
thirty  feet  removal  of  the  chapel.  He  presumed  no  one  has  any 
right  in  the  soil.  The  town  never  gave  an}T  right  in  the  land,  but 
simply  the  right  of  burial. 

Thomas  Minns  appeared  for  tomb  No.  9.  To  see  what  bearing 
the  interments  had  on  the  public  health  he  examined  the  City  Reg- 
istrar's office  to  find  the  records  of  the  last  five  }7ears.  He  found 
that  the  burials  in  1874  were  two,  in  1875,  two,  in  1876,  one,  in 
1877,  none,  in  1878,  four,  making  nine  interments  in  five  years,  or 
on  an  average  of  one  in  less  than  six  months.  The  removals  from 
other  cities  and  towns  to  this  burial-ground  were,  three  in  1874, 
two  in  1875,  one  in  1876,  none  in  1877,  one  in  1878,  making  a 
total  of  seven  in  five  years.  Miss  Mary  Clement,  the  last  surviv- 
ing daughter  of  the  owner  of  the  tomb,  thinks  it  would  be  an  act 
of  gross  injustice  and  hardship  to  deprive  her  of  the  right  to  be  laid 
where  her  parents  and  sisters  are,  and  where  she  proposes  to  be 
laid.  The  last  interment  was  in  1872.  Previous  to  that  there  was 
a  temporary  interment  in  1870,  and  the  previous  one  was  in  1865. 
He  saw  the  tomb  in  1870,  and  it  was  in  perfect  condition.  Miss 
Clement  is  very  old  and  infirm,  her  family  all  lie  there,  and  when 
she  dies  the  race  will  be  extinguished.     It  is  one  of  those  excep- 


50  City  Document  No.  96. 

tional  cases  which  ought  to  be  provided  for.  Should  think  there 
are  perhaps  the  remains  of  twenty  persons  in  the  tomb.  Think 
there  are  none  others  of  the  family  besides  Miss  Clement  that  care 
particularly  to  use  it. 

Eliza  P.  Baker,  represented  tomb  No.  26,  speaking  for  Mar- 
garet Hopkins,  especially.  Her  sister  is  seventy -five  years  old, 
feels  very  bad,  and  don't  want  to  have  the  tomb  closed.  It  has 
been  open  but  once  in  fifteen  years,  when  her  mother  was  buried, 
until  last  August,  when  her  father  died.  The  undertaker  said  the 
condition  of  the  tomb  was  good.  Mrs.  Newcomb,  who  has  an 
interest  in  No.  26,  removed  her  husband  to  Woodlawn  about  a 
month  ago,  and  a  brother  was  temporarily  buried  there  last 
August,  and  afterwards  taken  to  Woodlawn.  No  smell  came  up  from 
the  tomb  then.  They  are  all  poor;  could  not  get  another  place, 
and  would  like  to  be  buried  there.  Mr.  Joseph  Clyde  owns  the 
tomb,  and  it  was  her  Grandfather  Clyde  who  had  it  built.  It  is 
right  here  at  the  gate,  with  a  brown  top  to  it.  They  would  have 
no  objection  to  the  tomb  being  closed  if  the  city  would  provide 
them  with  another  place. 

Mrs.  Harriet  W.  Lovering,  representing  tomb  No.  1,  said  it 
was  open  a  year  ago  last  June  ;  there  are  seven  bodies  in  it  now. 
The  tomb  was  cleaned  in  1864  ;  is  in  excellent  condition  ;  there  are 
about  seven  members  of  the  family  who  are  to  be  buried  there,  and 
they  are  not  able  to  buy  another  place.  They  would  be  willing  to 
take  another  place. 

Clara  Wendell  also  represented  tomb  No.  1,  and  said  only  her 
mother  and  herself  were  left.  They  had  no  objection  to  closing 
the  tomb  if  another  place  is  provided  them.  She  had  often 
thought  that  if  she  had  the  means  she  should  decided^  prefer  to 
remove  the  remains  of  her  father  from  that  place,  and  would  be 
very  happy  to  do  so  if  the  city  would  allow  her  the  money.  Her 
father,  mother,  and  all  her  folks  were  residents  of  Boston. 

Mary  E.  Hathaway,  representing  tomb  No.  4,  said  that  her 
own  children,  her  mother,  grandmother,  and  all  her  ancestors  are 
buried  there.  Her  mother  was  buried  there  some  ten  }rears  ago, 
and  her  son  nine  years  ago.  If  the  tombs  are  closed  she  would 
not  remonstrate  on  her  own  responsibilit}'.  Her  aunt  had  the 
tomb  put  in  good  condition  nine  years  ago,  when  the  last  inter- 
ment took  place. 

Frank  W.  Bigelow,  representing  tomb  No.  11,  built  by  James 
Johnson,  in  1787,  said  that  in  1849,  or  thereabouts,  there  was  a 
hole  in  the  entrance,  and  his  father  had  it  repaired,  and  the  planks 
replaced  with  stone.  There  are  only  four  coffins  there.  Don't 
think  there  has  been  an  interment  since  1814,  though  there  has 
been  a  temporary  one.  Do  not  think  it  is  right  to  disturb  the 
tombs  if  they  are  not  a  nuisance,  and  do  not  think  they  are. 
Reside  in  Weston.  Would  rather  have  these  places  remain  just  as 
they  are.  Five  generations  of  his  mother's  family  are  buried  in  the 
King's  Chapel  Buiying-ground. 

Mrs.  E.  J.  Coy  said  she  had  a  brother  and  four  sisters  in  the 
infant's  tomb,  as  well  as  a  grandmother.  Have  no  objection  to 
the  tomb  being  closed  if  another  place  is  provided. 


Appendix.  51 

C.  L.  Ridgway  appeared  for  tomb  No.  20,  at  the  corner  of  School 
street.  He  objected  to  its  being  closed,  even  if  another  place  is 
provided.  The  last  interment  was  that  of  a  child,  five  years  ago. 
His  family  are  buried  there  ;  have  no  other  place  of  interment.  If 
the  city  would  give  him  the  best  place  in  Mt.  Auburn  for  his  right 
in  this  tomb,  perhaps  he  would  take  it.  There  are  as  many  to  be 
buried  there  as  the  tomb  will  hold.  He  did  not  see  any  reason  for 
shutting  the  tomb.  So  far  as  accepting  another  place  is  concerned 
he  would  say  about  that  as  one  would  about  bu3Ting  a  horse  — 
should  like  to  see  it  first. 

Edward  R.  Broaders  appeared  as  one  of  the  heirs  of  tomb  No. 
34.  He  had  no  objection  to  its  being  closed,  provided  the  city 
will  furnish  another  suitable  place  for  burial.  He  agreed  with  the 
views  of  Mr.  Coolidge.  Should  think  there  were  eight  or  ten 
bodies  in  the  tomb.  Himself  and  his  brother  are  the  only  direct 
descendants  that  remain.  His  children  are  mostly  provided  for 
in  other  places.  He  should  like  to  be  buried  there  because  his 
father,  mother,  grandfather,  and  grandmother,  and  ancestors 
farther  back  than  that  are  laid  there.  The  tomb  has  been  in  the 
family  one  hundred  years.  Understand  it  is  in  good  order.  Have 
not  seen  it  for  a  good  many  years.  Have  been  absent  for  the  last 
sixteen  years.  Think  it  was  opened  about  two  years  ago,  to  take 
out  two  persons  that  had  been  previously  buried  there.  They 
were  buried  about  six  years  previous  to  that. 

Mr.  Minns  presented  a  request  signed  by  himself,  Mr.  Bigelow, 
and  others,  requesting  an  adjournment  of  the  hearing  to  the  time 
of  the  adjourned  hearing  on  the  Granary  Burial-ground,  that  evi- 
dence may  be  presented  on  the  question  of  the  effect  of  burials  on 
public  health. 

The  committee  consulted,  and  the  chairman  announced  that  the 
next  hearing  would  be  on  Thursday,  September  4,  at  two,  P.M. 


SECOND   HEARING. 

Thursday,  Sept.  4,  1879. 

The  committee  met  at  two  o'clock,  P.M. 

Present.  —  Aldermen  Tucker,  chairman,  and  Robinson  ;  Coun- 
cilmen  Perkins,  Barry,  and  Wyman. 

Thomas  Wm.  Clarke  appeared  in  behalf  of  himself  and  the 
other  proprietors  of  tombs  upon  the  Tremont-street  front,  espe- 
cially representing  tomb  15  originally  belonging  to  Samuel  Tyley. 
He  desired  and  obtained  leave  to  introduce  evidence. 

John  Hassam,  a  conveyancer,  in  the  habit  of  visiting  the  reg- 
istry of  deeds  and  probate  building  very  often,  nearly  every  day 
for  fifteen  or  sixteen  years,  stated  in  reply  to  questions  by  Mr. 
Clarke  that  he  had  never  noticed  any  offence  or  nuisance  from  the 
King's  Chapel  Burying-ground.  Was  present  a  few  days  since 
when  some  of  the  tombs  were  opened,  stood  near  them,  and  did 
not  notice  any  nuisance  or  offensive  odor  when  they  were  opened. 


52  City  Document  No.  96. 

Some  had  a  large  number  of  coffins,  but  nothing  bad  in  them, 
There  were  many  people  on  the  sidewalk  looking  in  ;  heard  n6ne 
of  them  remark  anything  about  the  tombs  being  offensive.  It  was 
quite  a  warm,  muggy  day.  The  desk  he  usualty  occupied  in  the 
registry  is  at  the  window  opposite  Tremont  street,  looking  directly 
out  upon  this  tomb,  and  if  there  had  been  anything  offensive  he 
should  have  noticed  it.  Know  all  the  people  who  have  come  there 
for  years  examining  titles  and  never  heard  any  one  sa}r  anything 
about  it.  (To  Mr.  Perkins.)  Detected  no  offensive  odor.  Did  not 
look  into  all  of  them.  Noticed  nothing  unusual  about  the  tomb 
nearest  the  registiy  of  deeds  on  Tremont  street  when  it  was  opened. 
Could  not  tell  by  their  looks  whether  the  coffins  had  been  there  a 
long  time  or  not.  Am  very  quick  to  detect  odors.  Some  of  the 
coffins  were  much  discolored  and  black.  (To  Mr.  Bariy.)  Took 
a  general  look  at  all  of  them.  Thought  they  were  in  admirable 
condition.     Was  surprised  to  find  them  in  such  a  good  condition. 

Dr.  John  Homans,  a  physician  in  practice  about  seventeen  or 
eighteen  years,  testified  in  answer  to  Mr.  Clarke's  questions,  that 
he  had  been  familiar  with  the  King's  Chapel  Burying-ground  in 
that  time ;  am  familiar,  by  observation,  with  the  condition  of  cities 
abroad  where  intramural  interments  are  practised,  particularly 
London  and  Vienna. 

Mr.  Clarke  stated  that  it  appeared  from  the  City  Registrar's 
Record,  that  in  1874  five  tombs  were  opened  in  King's  Chapel 
Buiying-ground,  two  for  interment,  and  three  for  removal ;  four 
were  opened  in  1875,  two  for  interment,  and  two  for  removal ;  two 
in  1876,  one  for  interment,  and  one  for  removal ;  none  in  1877  ; 
six  in  1878,  four  for  interment,  and  two  for  removal;  making  an 
average  of  three  or  four  tombs  opened  in  each  year,  some  for  in- 
terment and  some  for  removal. 

Dr.  Homans  said  the  effect  of  that  upon  the  health  of  the  city 
in  that  neighborhood  would  be  inappreciable.  There  is  no  better 
disinfectant  than  earth. 

Mr.  Clarke  asked  Dr.  Homans  what  he  thought  of  the  statement 
in  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Health  as  to  the  value  of  the  King's 
Chapel  ground  for  building  and  other  purposes. 

The  Chairman  ruled  that  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion before  the  committee. 

Mr.  Clarke  desired  to  put  the  question  as  a  matter  of  sanitary 
experience. 

The  Chairman  thought  that  was  diverting  from  the  subject  before 
the  committee. 

Mr.  Clarke  desired  to  put  the  question  and  have  the  committee 
rule  upon  it,  whether  building  upon  that  ground  and  destroying  it 
as  a  breathing-place  would  have  a  greater  injury  upon  public 
health  than  five  to  ten  interments  a  year. 

The  Chairman  decided  that  the  question  of  building  on  the 
ground  was  not  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  Clarke  asked  for  a  vote  of  the  committee  upon  the  ques- 
tion, and  the  chairman  consented. 

Mr.  Perkins  understood  they  were  simply  considering  the  expe- 
diency of  closing  the  tombs  and  prohibiting  interments. 


Appendix.  53 

Mr.  Wyman  understood  that  erecting  buildings  there  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  question  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  Clarke  understood  that  the  Board  of  Health  had  recom- 
mended it. 

Mr.  Perkins  said  there  was  nothing  of  the  kind  in  the  order. 
They  are  simply  to  consider  the  expediency  of  closing  the  tombs 
on  sanitary  grounds  ;  but  building  upon  the  land  had  never  been 
mentioned. 

Dr.  Homans,  in  reply  to  questions  by  Mr.  Perkins,  said  the  effect 
of  burying-grounds  upon  the  health  of  people  in  localities  near 
them  depended  much  upon  the  crowded  state  of  the  population. 
At  the  North  End,  where  there  are  crowded  tenements,  it  would  be 
unhealthy  ;  but  around  the  St.  James  Hotel  it  would  not  have  so 
bad  an  effect.  Had  never  heard  that  Park  street  or  its  vicinity 
was  unhealthy.  (To  Mr.  Clarke.)  Was  in  the  army  ;  have  had 
experience  about  large  burying-grounds  where  a  great  number  of 
dead  have  been  buried  at  one  time.  Never  noticed  any  very  par- 
ticular difficulty  arising  from  troops  encamped  in  the  neighborhood, 
if  the  dead  had  been  property  buried.  If  they  encamped  in  the 
neighborhood  of  a  battle-field,  the  horses  and  mules  might  not  all 
have  been  buried,  and  of  course  the}'  would  make  a  disagreeable 
odor.  (To  Mr.  Perkins.)  As  a  general  rule  the  troops  never 
remained  long  enough  in  one  position  to  test  that  question,  and 
the  battle-field  was  left  soon  after  the  battle  was  fought,  but  not 
for  sanitary  reasons. 

Mr.  Perkins. —  Many  troops  were  buried  on  the  ground  of  the  first 
Bull  Run  battle,  and  many  troops  were  encamped  around  there 
before  the  second  Bull  Run.  I  know  it  was  generally  considered 
important  to  get  away  from  those  localities. 

Dr.  S.  L.  Abbott,  a  physician  in  practice  since  1841,  testified 
in  answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Clarke,  that  he  had  had  a  great  many 
patients  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  chapel  and  Granary  Burying- 
grounds  and  in  the  Tremont  House.  Did  not  consider  the  Tremont 
House  a  particularly  unhealthy  locality  on  account  of  its  vicinity 
to  the  buiying-ground.     Had  never  seen  a  case  of  sickness  there 
which  could  in  any  way  be  attributable  to   the  influence  of  the 
burial-ground.    Do  not  consider  that  four  or  five  interments  a  year 
in  King's  Chapel  Burying-ground  could  injure  the  public  health  in 
the  slightest  degree,  if  they  are  made  decently.     Cannot  conceive 
of  their  doing   any    possible   harm.     The   danger   from    a   great 
amount  of  organic  matter  decomposing  in  crowded  communities 
would  be  usually  more  from  the  injury  that   the  drinking-water 
might  sustain  by  filtering  through  such  a  soil ;  any  bad  odor  from 
the  burying-ground    might  be  offensive,  and  if  continued  might 
make  people  sick  ;  but  it  would  be  entirely  impossible  to  prevent 
anything  of  the   kind   in   the   burying-ground.     He   remembered 
visiting  a  burying-ground   in  Frederick  City-  crowded   with  dead 
soldiers  ;  but  there  was  not  the  slightest  bad  odor  about  it.     The 
soldiers  were  buried  in  ranks  side  by  side,  in  long  trenches.     (To 
Mr.  Perkins.)     There  have  been  a  great  variety  of  diseases  that  I 
have  treated  in  the  vicinity  of  these  grounds,  but  have  not  had  one 
case  of  fever.     They  were  most  of  them  cases  of  boarders  in  the 


54  City  Document  No.  96. 

hotel,  and  occasionally  a  domestic.  The  only  case  of  zymotic  dis- 
ease, which  is  considered  contagious,  was  two  or  three  years  ago, 
in  March,  I  think,  b}*  a  gentleman  who  arrived  from  an  extended 
tour  in  the  West,  and  was  taken  with  diphtheria  almost  immedi- 
ately on  his  arrival.  Do  not  think  I  have  had  a  case  of  dysentery 
during  the  time  I  have  been  called  there.  That  is  a  class  of  dis- 
eases likely  to  be  caused  by  effluvia  and  the  disturbance  of  the 
digestive  organs.  Neither  had  he  heard  any  complaint  from  the 
inmates  and  people  employed  in  the  house  of  any  bad  odor  from 
the  burying-ground. 

Wm.  B.  Trask,  for  many  years  in  the  habit  of  visiting  the  His- 
torical Society  rooms  in  the  Probate  building,  testified  in  answer  to 
Mr.  Clarke,  that  he  had  had  occasions  enough  in  the  past  thirty 
years  to  notice  anything  noxious  or  any  deleterious  odor  or  nui- 
sance from  the  graveyard,  but  had  never  observed  the  least  thing. 
Had  asked  the  question,  whether  there  was  any  complaint,  and  the 
answer  had  invariably  been,  not  in  the  least.  About  twentj*  years 
ago  he  was  sick  with  nervous  prostration,  and  on  his  recover}7  he 
was  particularly  sensitive  about  this  sort  of  thing,  and  his  family 
remarked  it.  The  Registry  of  Deeds  and  Probate  building  is  rather 
a  pleasant  place  to  work  in.  (To  Mr.  Perkins.)  Was  present  in 
the  office  looking  out  of  the  window  when  the  tombs  were  opened. 
Detected  no  odor,  not  even  from  the  one  opened  near  the  Registry 
of  Deeds. 

George  A.  Fisher,  member  of  the  Common  Council  from  Ward 
24,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Clarke,  testified  that  he  was  present  the 
other  day  when  the  tombs  were  opened  in  the  chapel  ground  ;  went 
into  one  of  them,  called  the  Johnson  tomb.  There  was  no  percep- 
tible odor  at  all.  The  tomb  seemed  to  be  in  good  condition  ;  do 
not  know  what  it  was  opened  for ;  was  in  the  Registry  of  Deeds  at 
work ;  was  in  the  tomb  three  or  four  minutes.  There  were  four 
coffins,  two  on  each  side  ;  three  of  them  were  whole,  apparently, 
the  fourth  was  broken.  There  was  no  offence  at  all  from  the  re- 
mains, so  far  as  he  could  see ;  is  pretty  sensitive  to  bad  odors  ; 
have  been  at  the  Registry  of  Deeds  the  greater  part  of  the  time 
for  twelve  years ;  have  not  heard  the  slightest  complaint  of  the 
burying-ground  from  the  people  who  frequent  that  place  ;  think  the 
people  who  frequent  the  Registry  of  Deeds  are  quite  a  healthy  lot. 
(To  Mr.  Perkins.)  Did  not  go  into  the  other  tombs  ;  stood  olose 
to  the  one  b}T  Tremont  street ;  it  was  the  second  tomb  opened-;  it 
was  nearer  the  Registry  than  the  Johnson  tomb  ;  did  not  look  into 
it ;  detected  no  odor  about  the  tombs  at  the  time  they  were  opened. 

Babson  S.  Ladd  said  to  Mr.  Clarke,  that  he  was  present  in  the 
Chapel-ground  when  the  tombs  were  opened  last  Tuesday.  Have 
been  in  the  habit  of  working  at  the  Registry  for  the  last  sixteen 
3Tears  quite  steadily,  and  also  before  that.  Have  noticed  no  special 
sickness  among  those  who  do  business  there.  Conveyancers  are 
generally  healthy  men.  The  light  is  poor  and  the  air  bad  in 
the  Registry,  but  not  on  account  of  the  tombs.  Went  into  the 
Johnson  tomb  with  Mr.  Fisher.  Should  call  it  dry  and  in  good 
condition.  (To  Mr.  Perkins.)  Never  lost  a  day,  except  one 
last  June. 


Appendix.  55 

Dr.  Chad  wick,  a  physician  in  active  practice  about  six  years, 
said  to  Mr.  Clarke,  that  he  was  very  well  acquainted  with  the 
Chapel  Burying-ground.  Occasional  interments  at  the  rate  of  two 
to  three  per  annum,  such  as  took  place  in  that  ground,  would 
have  no  effect  whatsoever  upon  the  public  health.  Never  noticed 
anything  about  the  burying-ground  that  was  injurious  or  a  nuisance 
in  any  way.  (To  Mr.  Perkins.)  Have  lived  in  the  neighborhood 
and  passed  the  grounds  daily.  Formerly  resided  on  Beacon  street. 
In  selecting  a  place  for  a  residence  he  should  avoid  a  graveyard 
he  knew  nothing  about,  on  sanitary  grounds.  Know  that  many 
eminent  physicians  have  testified  in  other  cities  of  a  prevalence 
of  typhus  and  other  diseases  near  graveyards,  but  think  it  depends 
upon  whether  the  drinking-water  in  the  neighborhood  would  be  likely 
to  be  tainted  b}r  the  surface-water  from  those  grounds.  As  to 
whether  such  grounds  would  be  likely  to  cause  such  diseases,  each 
case  would  have  to  be  considered  separate^.  Do  not  think  any 
one  could  express  an  opinion  worth  anything  in  that  vague  way  ; 
at  least  he  could  not.  Mr.  Perkins  stated  that  in  the  great  ma- 
jority of  these  tombs  the  bodies  were  put  in,  a  plank  put  over 
them  and  a  little  earth  over  that,  and  the  plank  soon  rots  out.  He 
asked  Dr.  Chad  wick  whether  he  thought  diseases  were  likely  to 
prevail  under  such  circumstances  ;  and  the  doctor  thought  they 
would.  (To  Mr.  Clark.)  If  the  tomb  was  carefully  cemented  with 
brick  and  stone,  and  had  a  slab  cemented  over  it,  the  escape  of  ef- 
fluvia could  not  be  appreciably  distinguished  in  that  neighborhood. 
(To  Mr.  Perkins.)  If  the  tombs  were  in  the  condition  named,  and 
were  opened  from  time  to  time,  the  escaping  effluvia  would  con- 
taminate the  surrounding  air  for  about  twenty  to  thirty  feet  for 
about  twenty  minutes. 

Irving  Winslow  appeared  as  a  representative  of  tombs  17  and 
27.  The  proprietors  of  the  tombs  are  satisfied  from  the  evidence 
before  the  committee  that  no  danger  exists  to  the  public  health 
from  opening  them  as  they  have  been.  Therefore,  they  feel  free 
to  plead  the  cause  of  sentiment.  There  is  a  feeling  among  the 
proprietors  that  if  their  legal  rights  are  taken  away,  the  next  step 
will  be  to  seize  the  grounds,  remove  the  bodies,  and  use  the  land 
for  more  profitable  purposes.  It  is  unnecessary  to  touch  upon  the 
sanitarj^  value  of  these  open  breathing-places.  The  evidence  in 
that  direction  quite  overbalances  the  evidence  of  the  unwhole- 
someness  of  the  ground.  There  is  no  practical  use  likely  to  be 
made  of  the  tombs.  All  his  family  have  burial-places  at  Mt. 
Auburn  and  other  cemeteries,  but  desire  to  maintain  these  grounds 
as  monuments  to  the  memory  of  our  honored  predecessors. 

Mr.  Minns  read  a  letter  from  B.  F.  Smith,  furnishing  undertaker, 
251  Tremont  street,  stating  that  in  his  business  experience  of 
twenty- five  years  he  had  never  heard  any  complaint  of  the  tombs 
in  King's  Chapel  Burying-ground.  For  seventeen  years  he  was 
associated  with  his  father,  sexton  of  King's  Chapel  Church,  and 
was  perfectly  familiar  about  the  ground.  Do  not  believe  there  is 
any  call  for  prohibiting  the  use  of  the  tombs  for  sanitary  reasons. 

Mr.  Minns  read  the  following  :  — 


56  City  Document  No.  96. 

To  the  Special  Committee  on  Interments  :  — 

Gentlemen,  —  As  I  cannot  conveniently  attend  the  meeting  on  the  4th  of 
September,  I  beg  leave  to  make  a  brief  communication  in  writing.  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  evil  consequences  happen  from  the  very  rare  interments  in 
King's  Chapel  Burial-ground,  nor  do  I  think  any  such  use  of  it  is  likely  to  be 
made  in  the  future,  as  to  produce  illness  or  inconvenience  of  any  kind.  On 
the  contrary,  I  believe  it  has  a  positively  beneficial  influence,  as  an  open 
breathing-space  in  a  crowded  part  of  the  city.  As  one  of  our  too  few  re- 
maining monuments  of  the  past,  I  hold  it,  in  common  with  many  others,  as  of 
priceless  value  to  a  city  which  has  a  history  like  ours.  I  have  sometimes 
heard  "  sentiment"  spoken  lightly  of  when  it  was  a  question  of  removing  old 
landmarks,  and  destroying  old  memorials  ;  but  what  would  not  our  friends  of 
Chicago,  or  Cincinnati,  give  for  one  such  monumental  enclosure,  with  its 
records  of  two  hundred  years?  I  am  one  of  those  who  have  personal  reasons 
for  being  opposed  to  any  movement  which  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
looks  to  the  eventual  desecration  of  our  ancient  city  church-yards,  and  as 
official  estimates  have  been  published  of  the  money  value  of  the  ground 
where  our  forefathers  are  buried,  the  next  step  contemplated  can  hardly  be 
doubtful.  My  maternal  ancestors  of  two  generations,  and  many  of  my 
family  connections  have  rested,  hitherto,  undisturbed  in  the  tomb  marked  No. 
1,  in  the  King's  Chapel  Cemetery.  I  say  my  ancestors,  I  mean  their  bodies, 
which  is  all  we  can  cover  with  our  tombstones.  And  yet  not  all,  for  affections 
and  remembrances  universally  held  sacred,  follow  them  to  what  we  fondly 
suppose  is  to  be  their  last  resting-place,  and  make  its  dust  holy  for  those  who 
love  them.  These  are  sentiments,  but  they  are  sentiments  which  the  poor 
savages,  whom  our  ancestors  displaced,  were  human  enough  to  cherish. 
When  did  a  North  American  Indian  ever  fail  to  respect  the  bones  of  his 
ancestors?  I  ask  the  same  respect  for  those  of  mine,  and  that  no  step  may 
be  taken  which  is  likely  to  lead  to  their  ejection. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  yours  very  respectfully, 

OLIVER  WENDELL  HOLMES. 

Sept.  1,  1879. 

Mr.  Minns  read  the  following :  — 

Newport,  R.I.,  August  28,  1879. 
Mr  Dear  Sir,  —  I  regret  to  be  informed  that  the  authorities  of  Boston  con- 
template the  taking  of  measures  to  prevent  future  interments  in  the  Stone 
Chapel  Burying-ground.  As  the  oldest  living  member  of  my  family,  I  protest 
against  such  proposed  action.  Among  some  old  papers  in  my  possession,  is 
one  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy  :  — 

"At  a  meeting  of  the  Selectmen  of  the  Town  of  Boston,  the  26th  of 
October,  1719,  liberty  granted  to  Wm.  Hutchinson,  and  Mr.  Francis  Brinley, 
to  make  a  tomb  in  the  old  burying-place,  on  the  same  spot  where  Mr.  Francis 
Brinley's  relatives  were  formerly  buried,  for  the  interring  of  the  seigneur  of 
the  family  there. 

A  true  copy  is  entered  in  the  records  of  the  Town  of  Boston. 

Examined,  P.  R.  Joseph  Prout  Town  Clerk." 

This  "  seigneur "  referred  to  was  Francis  Brinley,  who  came  to  America 
from  England ;  married  and  lived  in  Newport.  His  name  and  standing  are 
well  known  to  all  who  are  acquainted  with  the  colonial  history  of  Rhode 
Island.  He  had  estates  in  Boston,  which  he  frequently  visited.  He  died 
there  at  an  advanced  age,  having  survived  his  children ;  but  there  were  two 
grandchildren,  both  of  them  born  in  England.  They  and  their  widowed 
mother  came  to  America  by  his  invitation.  One  of  these  grandchildren  was 
a  daughter,  who  married  Wm.  Hutchinson ;  the  other  was  a  son,  Col.  Francis 
Brinley,  of  Datchet  House,  Roxbury,  Mass.  They  were  the  persons  to  whom 
liberty  was  given  "to  make  a  tomb."  In  it  repose  the  remains  of  my  great- 
great  grandfather ;  of  my  great  grandfather  and  great  grandmother ;  of  my  grand- 
father and  grandmother ;  of  my  father  and  mother,  and  of  a  sister ;  there  I 
wish  them  to  remain.     I  respectfully  insist  that  there  must  be  an  overwhelming 


Appendix.  57 

indisputable  necessity  to  justify  a  nullification  of  the  vote  of  the  selectmen, 
to  which  I  have  adverted ;  and  I  also  insist  that  no  proof  of  such  necessity 
exists.  To  prevent  interments  in  the  Stone  Chapel  Burying-ground,  cannot 
be  from  mere  sanitary  consideration ;  hence,  a  vote  of  the  proprietors  should 
be  had  before  the  city  can  be  justified  in  undertaking  a  measure  which  will 
tend  to  depreciate  a  most  valuable  property,  as  is  this  God's  acre,  for  the 
benefit  of  anybody  but  those  whose  feelings  and  interests  are  profoundly  con- 
cerned. As  I  cannot  be  in  Boston  at  the  proposed  hearing  on  the  4th  prox.r 
you  are  at  liberty  to  use  this  as  you  shall  deem  proper  and  expedient. 
Very  respectfully  your  obedient  servant, 

FRANCIS   BRINLEY. 

Thomas  Minns,  Esq.,  14  Louisburg  Sq.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Mr.  Minns  also  read  letters  from  A.  J.  C.  Sowden,  and  George 
W.  Wales,  protesting  against  the  closing  of  the  tombs. 

The  Chairman  stated  that  there  seemed  to  be  a  misunderstand- 
ing on  the  part  of  some  of  the  remonstrants  as  to  the  duty  of  the 
committee,  and  at  his  request  Dr.  Durgin,  on  behalf  of  the  Board 
of  Health,  stated  that  they  had  presented  the  communication  to 
the  City  Government,  simply  from  a  sanitary  point  of  view.  It  is 
not  intended  to  disturb  the  open  spaces  or  encourage  the  building 
of  anything  upon  them  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  should  certainly  pro- 
test against  any  building  being  erected  on  those  sites ;  and  said 
the  feeling  of  the  Board  of  Health  was  that  the  ground  should  be 
closed  against  further  interments,  and  the  tombs  sealed  up  and 
made  secure,  and  the  beaut}*  of  the  place  preserved  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, by  the  city  of  Boston.  It  is  not  the  feeling  of  the  Board  of 
Health  that  the  bodies  should  be  removed  from  the  tombs,  unless 
it  be  the  desire  of  the  proprietors  to  do  so  at  their  pleasure. 

Mr.  Clarke  called  Dr.  Durgin's  attention  to  the  valuation  of 
the  ground,  made  in  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Health  of  1877, 
and  the  doctor  denied  that  it  was  intended  as  a  recommendation 
for  the  building  of  a  court-house  upon  the  site.  The  Board  had 
tried  in  all  honorable  ways  to  stir  up  the  City  Council  and  people 
of  Boston,  and  make  them  feel  that  the  time  had  come  when  no 
more  bodies  should  be  placed  there.  The  Board  do  not  recom- 
mend the  sale  of  the  grounds.  He  should  protest  against  their 
sale  and  against  an}*  building  being  placed  upon  those  grounds. 
The  present  Board  would  not  be  willing  to  see  an}*  building  placed 
thereon.  He  should  prefer  to  have  the  remains  removed,  but  the 
Board  do  not  ask  for  that.  If  the  tombs  can  be  sealed  and  remain 
closed,  he  should  ask  for  nothing  more  ;  but  if  they  are  left  open 
and  dilapidated,  the  Board  would  protest  against  it,  and  continue 
to  do  so.  In  reply  to  questions  by  Mr.  Clarke,  Dr.  Durgin  said 
he  was  not  present  when  the  tombs  were  opened,  but  it  was  done 
by  permission  of  the  Board  of  Health  to  show  their  condition  to 
the  committee.  If  anything  had  been  improperly  disturbed,  he 
should  be  very  sorry.  He  had  no  sickly  sentiment  about  this 
matter,  but  he  had  as  much  feeling  of  respect  for  the  grounds  as 
any  one  else,  and  would  do  as  much  towards  their  beauty  and  pro- 
tection as  any  one  else. 

Mr.  Minns  called  Francis  Parkman,  one  of  the  trustees  of  the 
Athenaeum,  who  said  there  had  been  no  complaint  made  by  the 


58  City  Document  No.  96. 

proprietors  of  the  Athenaeum  about  the  proximity  of  the  Granary 
Burial-ground  during  the  twenty-one  years  he  had  been  trustee. 
He  believed  the  trustees  and  the  proprietors  both  regarded  the 
presence  of  the  graveyard  as  a  positive  advantage  in  supplying 
light  and  air.  That  is  one  of  the  advantages  usually  spoken  of 
in  regard  to  the  situation  of  the  Athenaeum. 

Mr.  Clarke,  on  behalf  of  the  proprietors  of  the  tombs  fronting  on 
Tremont  street,  said  they  were  all  built  in  1738,  by  a  special  permit 
granted  at  a  town  meeting,  under  certain  conditions  which  have 
been  complied  with.  Mr.  Clarke  read  extracts  from  the  records 
of  the  town  to  corroborate  this  statement,  and  also  further  extracts 
giving  the  histor}'  of  the  tombs,  the  repairs  made  upon  them  by 
the  proprietors,  and  the  action  of  the  town  in  relation  thereto, 
all  showing  that  the  original  conditions  had  been  fully  complied 
with  by  the  proprietors.  He  said  there  were  too  few  breathing- 
places  in  the  city, already.  The  proprietors  were  afraid  that,  if  the 
tombs  were  closed,  the  next  step  would  be  to  remove  the  remains 
and  confiscate  the  property  for  private  gain  or  public  use.  He  did 
not  suppose  there  was  one  of  the  proprietors  living  who  did  not 
feel  the  highest  disgust  and  indignation  at  the  proposal  that  the 
rights  which  his  ancestors  had  purchased  and  paid  for  should  be 
forfeited,  when  nothing  whatever  has  been  shown  as  regards  ai^ 
particular  tomb  that  is  a  nuisance.  Point  to  a  syllable  of  evi- 
dence that  authorizes  the  closing  of  one  of  the  tombs  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  a  nuisance.  If  you  cannot  do  that,  then  when  we  come 
to  our  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  which  we  are  authorized  to 
make,  that  is  the  issue  the  city  have  got  to  try  before  a  jury.  Has 
anything  been  shown  that  tomb  No.  15  is  a  nuisance?  It  had  not 
been  opened  since  he  was  born.  It  has  been  sealed  up  with  a  stone 
slab  laid  in  cement  since  before  he  was  born,  and  the  proposition 
is  to  deprive  him  of  a  right  in  it,  —  whether  or  not  he  proposed  to 
use  it  is  nobody's  business.  The  proprietors  want  that  place  kept 
open  as  a  shrine.  They  know  that  the  report  of  the  Board  of 
Health,  coupled  with  the  statement  of  the  pecuniary  value  of  the 
land,  will  tend  to  the  creation  of  a  sentiment  in  favor  of  using 
this  land  for  building  purposes.  The  remains  of  John  Leverett 
and  John  Winthrop  lie  there.  Those  are  names  we  ought  to  honor, 
and  in  behalf  of  the  memories  and  associations  clustered  about 
such  names  the  proprietors  protest  against  this  first  attempt  to 
encroach  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  who  own  the  tombs  in 
King's  Chapel  Burying-ground.  Not  a  single  case  of  nuisance  had 
been  proved  before  the  committee.  We  have  a  history  in.  these 
little  spots,  and  Boston  cannot  afford  to  have  them  tampered  with. 
Boston  cannot  afford  to  lose  them.  Faneuil  Hall  is  not  very  con- 
venient for  a  town-house  or  for  public  meetings  of  citizens,  but 
does  anybody  want  to  sell  it  ?  Does  anybody  want  to  close  it  and 
seal  it  up?  So  we  say  to  you,  leave  us  this  right.  It  has  not 
been  exercised  within  five  years  enough  to  cause  any  harm.  Above 
all,  whatever  you  do,  do  not  lay  the  foundation  for  any  use  of 
those  grounds  which  will  not  leave  them  open  to  God's  light  and 
air  for  the  benefit  of  this  neighborhood  forever.  We  stand 
here   to  defend  the    rights   of  the   citizens    of  Boston   to   have 


Appendix.  59 

that  breathing-space,  and  to  defend  it  against  the  insinuation 
of  the  Board  of  Health  in  1877  that  it  can  be  sold.  The  Board 
of  Health  say  they  did  not  recommend  it  and  do  not  believe  it 
should  be  sold.  Oh,  no  ;  the}'  didn't  recommend  it ;  but  they  said 
if  it  could  be  sold,  a  piece  of  land  could  be  bought  somewhere  else 
with  the  money.  We  have  got  them  on  record  finally  that  it  ought 
not  to  be  done  ;  but  they  say  that  sooner  or  later  the  remains  must 
be  removed.  He  stood  here  to  prevent  the  desecration  of  those 
graves  under  the  orders  of  the  Board  Health.  They  are  here  to 
resist  this  first  step  which  the  city  has  no  right  to  take  unless  each 
and  every  tomb  is  shown  to  be  a  nuisance  and  injurious  to  public 
health.     That  is  what  must  be  proved  to -a  jury  on  appeal. 

In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  Mr.  Clarke  dwelt  upon  the  fact,  as 
appeared  from  the  records,  that  the  city  tomb  known  as  the 
Charnel  Tomb  had  been  in  bad  condition,  and  he  strongly  con- 
trasted the  neglect  of  the  city  authorities  with  the  care  which  the 
private  owners  had  exercised  over  their  property. 

Arthur  T.  Lyman,  representing  the  proprietors  of  the  King's 
Chapel  Church,  said  the  society  are  entirely  opposed  to  such  a  use 
of  this  burial-ground  as  would  tend  to  allow  it  to  be  built  upon,  and 
they  are  opposed  to  further  interments  there.  The  vestr}-  of  the 
church  last  spring  unanimously  expressed  the  wish  of  the  congre- 
gation that  interments  should  be  prevented.  Nearly  every  one 
having  an  interest  in  the  tombs  has  a  place  of  interment  provided 
elsewhere.  The  church  has  spent  a  good  deal  of  money  in  keeping 
the  tombs  in  perfect  order.  Although  no  nuisance  has  occurred 
under  the  chapel  as  yet,  it  is  simply  because  the  church  looks 
after  the  tombs.  If  an}r  neglect  occurs  they  are  liable  to  become  a 
nuisance.  A  large  number  of  the  tombs  near  the  chapel  have  been 
opened  a  good  deal  of  the  time  last  spring  and  winter.  A  year  or 
two  ago,  in  the  winter  or  spring,  when  the  frost  was  in  the  ground, 
a  burial  took  place  in  the  north  part  of  the  chapel.  It  was  filled 
in  when  the  ground  was  frosty  ;  a  heavy  rain  washed  it  away,  and 
the  surface  water  poured  freely  into  the  tomb.  Such  things  are  apt 
to  occur  in  the  burying-ground  where  there  are  no  individuals  con- 
stantly attending  the  tombs,  and  no  public  body  to  look  after  them. 
Such  a  case  is  sufficient  to  constitute  a  nuisance.  In  London  fur- 
ther burials  have  been  prohibited  in  many  of  the  city  cemeteries. 
In  many  cases  the  tombstones  have  been  removed,  and  the  bury- 
ing-grounds  turned  into  public  gardens. 

George  E.  Lincoln,  representing  tomb  No.  7,  said  the  proprie- 
tors very  seriously  object  to  any  steps  being  taken  to  close  the 
tombs,  and  he  thoroughly  indorsed  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Clarke. 

E.  H.  Derby  stated  that  in  1819  he  came  to  reside  in  the  vicinity 
of  those  burial-grounds  at  No.  1  Park  street,  next  to  the  church, 
and  lived  there  eight  years,  part  of  the  time  attending  the  Latin 
School  and  part  of  the  time  at  Harvard  College.  It  was  always  a 
healthful  spot.  The  health  of  the  family  was  excellent,  and  he 
remembered  no  fever  or  disease  of  that  character  during  the  time  he 
resided  there.  He  appeared  for  two  tombs  —  No.  16,  that  belonged 
to  his  maternal  ancestor,  Enoch  Brown,  a  prominent  merchant  of 
Boston  before  and  during  the  Revolutionary  War  ;  the  other  tomb 


60  City  Document  No.  96. 

was  the  resting-place  of  John  Arnold,  a  prominent  man  in  his  time, 
having  command  of  the  militia  during  the  war  with  England.  Mr. 
Derb}-  spoke  at  length  of  the  rights  of  the  proprietors,  the  respect 
which  should  be  shown  to  the  memory  of  those  who  were  buried  in 
the  tomb,  and  said  that  from  the  evidence  he  could  see  no  adequate 
reason  for  closing  the  tomb.  If  he  could  be  assured  that  no  build- 
ing would  be  placed  upon  the  ground  in  the  future,  he  would  be 
inclined  to  acquiesce  in  the  closing  of  the  tombs  ;  but  he  was  very 
fearful  he  could  not  get  an  assurance  on  that  subject.  He  thought 
it  best  to  stand  on  the  title  which  they  held. 

Mr.  Derby  filed  the  following  with  the  committee :  — 

To  the  Eon.  the  City  Council  of  Boston :  — 

The  undersigned,  E.  Hasket  Derby,  respectfully  states  that  he  has  been  for 
many  years  the  sole  owner  of  tomb  No.  16,  near  the  centre  of  King's  Chapel 
Burying-ground,  with  rights  in  the  land  adjacent.  That  it  contains  the  dust  of 
his  maternal  ancestors ;  that  he  has  repaired  the  same  from  respect  for  the 
honored  dead.  That  there  have  been  no  interments  in  it  for  nearly  half  a  cen- 
tury ;  that  he  wishes  to  keep  it  inviolate  and  in  proper  repair.  He  therefore 
respectfully  protests  against  any  action  of  the  city  government  that  shall  im- 
pair the  value  of  his  estate  in  said  tomb  and  land. 

ELIAS   HASKET   DERBY. 

Abigail  C.  Lloyd,  representing  tomb  No.  26,  said  it  had 
always  been  taken  care  of,  and  was  in  good  condition.  She  is  the 
only  one  remaining  of  her  mother's  family,  and  would  like  to  be 
laid  there.  The  last  interment  was  about  a  year  ago  last  August. 
There  are  four  more  likely  to  be  buried  there.  She  would  prefer  to 
be  buried  there  rather  than  accept  another  place  offered  by  the  city. 

Henry  E.  Holland  said  his  mother  is  buried  in  a  tomb  marked  and 
belonging  to  Mr.  Martin  Smith.  He  had  also  four  infants  buried 
there,  and  his  father  and  great  grandfather  were  buried  there.  He  did 
not  want  to  have  their  remains  disturbed,  though  if  the  city  would 
give  a  good  lot  and  remove  the  remains  there  he  would  not  object. 

Mary  A.  Nims  spoke  in  regard  to  the  Wm.  Moore  tomb,  and 
said  she  had  a  brother  who  wished  to  be  buried  there.  The  tomb 
was  used  about  three  years  ago.  She  would  prefer  that  the  tomb 
remain  as  it  is. 

O.  L.  Fern,  representing  tomb  No.  24,  said  there  were  many 
people  who  are  likely  to  be  buried  there.  He  had  not  so  much  ob- 
jection to  the  closing  of  the  tomb  as  other  members  of  the  family 
had,  if  a  suitable  place  is  provided  at  the  expense  of  the  city-  He 
would  prefer  to  have  the  tomb  remain  as  it  is  on  the  whole.  If  the 
city  provided  a  place  acceptable  to  him  he  would  not  object. 

This  closed  the  public  hearing. 

Dr.  Durgin  explained  to  the  committee  that  the  paragraph  so 
often  quoted  from  the  Board  of  Health  of  1877,  in  regard  to  the 
valuation  of  the  land,  was  never  intended  as  a  recommendation 
that  the  land  be  sold  or  built  upon.  The  Board  had  been  endeav- 
oring to  attract  the  attention  of  the  City  Council  to  this  subject, 
and  this  was  one  of  the  means  used  to  accomplish  that  end.  The 
Board  had  never  contemplated  selling  or  building  upon  the  burial- 
ground. 


Appendix.  61 


A      ACT  to  Amend  Chapter  Twenty-Eight  of  the  General 
Statutes  in  Respect  to  Closing  Tombs  in  Cities. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  as  follows:  — 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  any  city  may,  upon  report  of 
the  Board  of  Health  thereof  that  the  public  health  requires  it,  and 
after  public  notice  and  hearing  in  the  manner  hereinafter  provided, 
forbid  future  interment  in  any  tomb  or  tombs  within  the  city 
limits. 

Section.  2.  The  report  of  the  Board  of  Health  above  mentioned 
shall  specif}^  the  tomb  or  tombs  to  which  its  action  refers,  and 
name  the  owner  or  owners  thereof  if  the  same  be  known  ;  and 
thereupon  the  citj'  clerk  shall  give  notice  to  such  owner  or 
owners  as  are  known  and  reside  within  the  Commonwealth,  and 
shall  likewise  publish  a  notice  at  least  twice  a  week  for  four 
consecutive  weeks,  in  two  or  more  newspapers  published  in 
the  city,  or  in  the  county  wherein  said  city  is  situated.  The 
said  notice  shall  recite  the  report  of  said  Board  of  Health,  and 
shall  notify  all  parties  interested  in  the  premises  to  appear  before 
a  Joint  Committee  of  the  City  Council,  at  a  time  not  less  than  two 
nor  more  than  three  months  from  last  publication  of  said  notice, 
and  show  cause  why  the  report  of  said  Board  of  Health  should  not 
be  accepted,  and  the  tomb  or  tombs  therein  mentioned  be  closed. 
After  such  hearing,  the  City  Council  may,  upon  a  vote  of  both 
branches  thereof,  and  with  the  approval  of  the  Mayor,  declare  said 
tomb  or  tombs  to  be  closed,  and  no  interments  shall  thereafter  be 
permitted  therein. 

Section  3.  Whenever  in  the  judgment  of  the  Board  of  Health 
of  any  city  any  tomb  therein  needs  repair,  it  shall  give  notice 
thereof  to  the  known  owner,  or  if  there  be  more  than  one,  to  one 
of  the  known  owners  thereof,  requiring  that  said  tomb  be  put  in  a 
proper  state  of  repair  within  three  months  from  the  date  thereof; 
and  if  the  owner  or  owners  of  said  tomb  be  unknown,  then  the 
Board  of  Health  may  publish  notice  in  the  manner  provided  in 
section  two,  requiring  the  owner  or  owners  to  repair  said  tomb 
within  the  time  above  mentioned  ;  and  if  the  owner  or  owners  do 
not  repair  said  tomb  within  the  time  mentioned,  then  the  Board  of 
Health  may  enter  upon  said  tomb  and  make  the  repairs  needed,  at 
the  expense  of  said  city.  If  the  public  health  requires  immediate 
action,  the  Board  of  Health  may  make  the  necessar}T  repairs,  the 
cost  of  which  shall  be  refunded  upon  demand,  by  the  owner  or 
owners  of  such  tomb.  If  the  city  shall  incur  any  expense  in  re- 
gard to  any  tomb,  in  the  manner  before  specified,  the  said  tomb 
shall  be  held  by  said  Board  of  Health,  and  no  further  use  shall  be 
made  of  said  tomb  until  the  owner  or  owners  thereof  shall  pay  the 
expense  of  said  repairs  and  interest  thereon ;  and  after  twenty 
years'  possession  under  this  act  for  non-repairs,  all  interest  and 
right  of  burial  in  any  such  tomb  shall  vest  in  the  cit}7  in  which  the 
same  is  situate. 


62  City  Document  No.  96. 

Section  4.  The  provisions  of  section  three  of  chapter  twenty- 
eight  of  the  General  Statutes  shall  apply  to  all  tombs  in  public 
cemeteries  in  cities,  and  the  boards  of  health  in  cities  shall  exer- 
cise, in  regard  to  such  tombs,  the  powers  granted  by  said  section 
to  trustees  or  directors  of  certain  corporations. 

Section  5.  Any  person  aggrieved  by  the  action  of  the  City 
Council  or  Board  of  Health  under  this  act,  may  appeal  therefrom 
in  the  manner  provided  by  sections  nine  and  ten  of  chapter  twent}T- 
eight  of  the  General  Statutes. 

Section  6.  The  provisions  of  section  eighty-nine  of  chapter 
fort3T-three  of  the  General  Statutes  shall  apply  to  the  erection  of 
any  building  upon  any  burial-ground  or  cemetery  belonging  to  any 
cit}r  in  the  Commonwealth. 

Section  7.     This  act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  passage. 

Approved  May  4,  1877. 


